All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <drosen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:14:59 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5d421615-19a1-4609-4e51-3b0c397bafb3@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190430025406.GA17299@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>

On 2019/4/30 10:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 04/29, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019-4-28 21:47, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 04/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> When calculating .f_bfree value in f2fs_statfs(), sbi->unusable_block_count
>>>> can be increased after the judgment condition, result in overflow of
>>>> .f_bfree in later calculation. This patch fixes to use a temporary signed
>>>> variable to save the calculation result of .f_bfree.
>>>>
>>>> 	if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
>>>>  		buf->f_bfree = 0;
>>>>  	else
>>>> 		buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>
>>> Do we just need stat_lock for this?
>>
>> Like we access other stat value in statfs(), we just need the instantaneous
>> value of .unusable_block_count, so we don't need additional stat_lock, right?
> 
> What I've concerend is whether or not this fixes all the inconsistent values.
> The original intention was providing stats in best effort, so we wouldn't use
> any lock.

Hmm.. I've made a patch to protect .unusable_block_count update/access as below,
how about merging this two patch, in addition, in this patch, let's add
stat_lock around accessing .f_bfree/.unusable_block_count.

From b927209d10fc222243037d05ccc899f48569e773 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:51:22 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to cover sbi->unusable_block_count with stat_lock

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 4 ++++
 fs/f2fs/segment.c    | 5 ++++-
 fs/f2fs/super.c      | 2 ++
 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
index f6ba9a743a2d..526a70ea7433 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
@@ -1536,7 +1536,11 @@ static int do_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct
cp_control *cpc)
 	clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY);
 	clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_CP);
 	clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_QUOTA_SKIP_FLUSH);
+
+	spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
 	sbi->unusable_block_count = 0;
+	spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
+
 	__set_cp_next_pack(sbi);

 	/*
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 5c3f07540db1..f10c394cf467 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -2203,8 +2203,11 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
block_t blkaddr, int del)
 			 * before, we must track that to know how much space we
 			 * really have.
 			 */
-			if (f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
+			if (f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map)) {
+				spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
 				sbi->unusable_block_count++;
+				spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
+			}
 		}

 		if (f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index 1a05a636bd2a..dd6e7b351b58 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -1546,7 +1546,9 @@ static int f2fs_disable_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
 	set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED);
 	f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);

+	spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
 	sbi->unusable_block_count = 0;
+	spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
 	mutex_unlock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
 restore_flag:
 	sbi->sb->s_flags = s_flags;	/* Restore MS_RDONLY status */
-- 
2.18.0.rc1



> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/f2fs/super.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> index 2376bb01b5c4..fcc9793dbc2c 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> @@ -1216,6 +1216,7 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>>>>  	u64 id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
>>>>  	block_t total_count, user_block_count, start_count;
>>>>  	u64 avail_node_count;
>>>> +	long long bfree;
>>>>  
>>>>  	total_count = le64_to_cpu(sbi->raw_super->block_count);
>>>>  	user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
>>>> @@ -1226,10 +1227,12 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>>>>  	buf->f_blocks = total_count - start_count;
>>>>  	buf->f_bfree = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) -
>>>>  						sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
>>>> -	if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
>>>> +
>>>> +	bfree = buf->f_bfree - sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>> +	if (unlikely(bfree < 0))
>>>>  		buf->f_bfree = 0;
>>>>  	else
>>>> -		buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>> +		buf->f_bfree = bfree;
>>>>  
>>>>  	if (buf->f_bfree > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks)
>>>>  		buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree -
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.18.0.rc1
> .
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, drosen@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:14:59 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5d421615-19a1-4609-4e51-3b0c397bafb3@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190430025406.GA17299@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>

On 2019/4/30 10:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 04/29, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019-4-28 21:47, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 04/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> When calculating .f_bfree value in f2fs_statfs(), sbi->unusable_block_count
>>>> can be increased after the judgment condition, result in overflow of
>>>> .f_bfree in later calculation. This patch fixes to use a temporary signed
>>>> variable to save the calculation result of .f_bfree.
>>>>
>>>> 	if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
>>>>  		buf->f_bfree = 0;
>>>>  	else
>>>> 		buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>
>>> Do we just need stat_lock for this?
>>
>> Like we access other stat value in statfs(), we just need the instantaneous
>> value of .unusable_block_count, so we don't need additional stat_lock, right?
> 
> What I've concerend is whether or not this fixes all the inconsistent values.
> The original intention was providing stats in best effort, so we wouldn't use
> any lock.

Hmm.. I've made a patch to protect .unusable_block_count update/access as below,
how about merging this two patch, in addition, in this patch, let's add
stat_lock around accessing .f_bfree/.unusable_block_count.

>From b927209d10fc222243037d05ccc899f48569e773 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:51:22 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to cover sbi->unusable_block_count with stat_lock

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 4 ++++
 fs/f2fs/segment.c    | 5 ++++-
 fs/f2fs/super.c      | 2 ++
 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
index f6ba9a743a2d..526a70ea7433 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
@@ -1536,7 +1536,11 @@ static int do_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct
cp_control *cpc)
 	clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY);
 	clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_CP);
 	clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_QUOTA_SKIP_FLUSH);
+
+	spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
 	sbi->unusable_block_count = 0;
+	spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
+
 	__set_cp_next_pack(sbi);

 	/*
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 5c3f07540db1..f10c394cf467 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -2203,8 +2203,11 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
block_t blkaddr, int del)
 			 * before, we must track that to know how much space we
 			 * really have.
 			 */
-			if (f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
+			if (f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map)) {
+				spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
 				sbi->unusable_block_count++;
+				spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
+			}
 		}

 		if (f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index 1a05a636bd2a..dd6e7b351b58 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -1546,7 +1546,9 @@ static int f2fs_disable_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
 	set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED);
 	f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);

+	spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
 	sbi->unusable_block_count = 0;
+	spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
 	mutex_unlock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
 restore_flag:
 	sbi->sb->s_flags = s_flags;	/* Restore MS_RDONLY status */
-- 
2.18.0.rc1



> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/f2fs/super.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> index 2376bb01b5c4..fcc9793dbc2c 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> @@ -1216,6 +1216,7 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>>>>  	u64 id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
>>>>  	block_t total_count, user_block_count, start_count;
>>>>  	u64 avail_node_count;
>>>> +	long long bfree;
>>>>  
>>>>  	total_count = le64_to_cpu(sbi->raw_super->block_count);
>>>>  	user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
>>>> @@ -1226,10 +1227,12 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>>>>  	buf->f_blocks = total_count - start_count;
>>>>  	buf->f_bfree = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) -
>>>>  						sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
>>>> -	if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
>>>> +
>>>> +	bfree = buf->f_bfree - sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>> +	if (unlikely(bfree < 0))
>>>>  		buf->f_bfree = 0;
>>>>  	else
>>>> -		buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>> +		buf->f_bfree = bfree;
>>>>  
>>>>  	if (buf->f_bfree > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks)
>>>>  		buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree -
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.18.0.rc1
> .
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-30  3:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-26  9:57 [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree Chao Yu
2019-04-26  9:57 ` Chao Yu
2019-04-26  9:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to handle error in f2fs_disable_checkpoint() Chao Yu
2019-04-26  9:57   ` Chao Yu
2019-04-28 13:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree Jaegeuk Kim
2019-04-29 14:13   ` Chao Yu
2019-04-30  2:54     ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-04-30  3:14       ` Chao Yu [this message]
2019-04-30  3:14         ` Chao Yu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5d421615-19a1-4609-4e51-3b0c397bafb3@huawei.com \
    --to=yuchao0@huawei.com \
    --cc=chao@kernel.org \
    --cc=drosen@google.com \
    --cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.