From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A9FC433EF for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C43482196E for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:19:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="JI7n4Akj"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="O4p7YKzK" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C43482196E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7FpS-00057k-SD; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:19:22 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7FpR-00057b-8o for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:19:21 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=EJvnVDA6MNRmogVD4wgts+7R/ZMBSZ2ZGnvrHzKV97Q=; b=JI7n4AkjUmGOkRsE4LSgxFaBsh PBN+oEV8kcwlK9dOS03CEb0wBnjfdajECEJYcevPOH7+RObxltkK0G9UedSuEuWmGq+spCoj/N0GU 8kD44gw1VTmD/FZL4df4i2GVbYsqMyMpg7dPUfFwNYAnqGerwygyOp00loqc0jIUQqJQ=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=EJvnVDA6MNRmogVD4wgts+7R/ZMBSZ2ZGnvrHzKV97Q=; b=O4p7YKzKr3MlFO30wO8b97bN20 GfuQdszUZI58LHIlLv+86cYwCM0SvrgvQzpGH1SVC+OqnUqF7SpazmmXX3YaltwAvNu/+sPwAcj+r tpNtR4VukVmKxIvy4uVQt2vZuvyBmD2OCqkS7Y6LwndubsTOwWf8PemJUzOZITLiZ0KM=; Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35] helo=huawei.com) by sfi-mx-3.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1i7FpN-00FO96-JK for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:19:21 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D19801565FE13358F98D; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:19:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.134.22.195] (10.134.22.195) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:19:04 +0800 To: Jaegeuk Kim References: <20190906105426.109151-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> <20190906234808.GC71848@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <080e8dee-4726-8294-622a-cac26e781083@kernel.org> <20190909074425.GB21625@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <79228eaa-776f-da89-89f8-a9b5a90034b6@huawei.com> <873f4c07-5694-6554-5266-81812a6bd617@huawei.com> <20190909083725.GB25724@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <05393d3c-b78d-3bb3-ff26-64d2d3939618@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:18:47 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190909083725.GB25724@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Headers-End: 1i7FpN-00FO96-JK Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 2019/9/9 16:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode cache, >>>>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call >>>>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate valid >>>>>>> target block. >>>>>> >>>>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? >>>> >>>> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block >>>> really valid to move in GC? >>> >>> I guess it's valid, let double check that. >> >> We can see inode page: >> >> - f2fs_create >> - f2fs_add_link >> - f2fs_add_dentry >> - f2fs_init_inode_metadata >> - f2fs_add_inline_entry >> - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page >> - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this > > Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? Add log like this: if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { if (is_inode) { for (i = 0; i < 923 - 50; i++) { __le32 *base = blkaddr_in_node(node); unsigned ofs = offset_in_addr(inode); printk("i:%u, addr:%x\n", i, le32_to_cpu(*(base + i))); } printk("i_inline: %u\n", inode->i_inline); } It shows: ... i:10, addr:e66a ... i:46, addr:e66c i:47, addr:e66d i:48, addr:e66e i:49, addr:e66f i:50, addr:e670 i:51, addr:e671 i:52, addr:e672 i:53, addr:e673 i:54, addr:e674 i:55, addr:e675 i:56, addr:e676 ... i:140, addr:2c35 <--- we want to migrate this block, however, without correct .i_inline and .i_extra_isize value, we can just find i_addr[i:140-6] = NULL_ADDR i:141, addr:2c38 i:142, addr:2c39 i:143, addr:2c3b i:144, addr:2c3e i:145, addr:2c40 i:146, addr:2c44 i:147, addr:2c48 i:148, addr:2c4a i:149, addr:2c4c i:150, addr:2c4f i:151, addr:2c59 i:152, addr:2c5d ... i:188, addr:e677 i:189, addr:e678 i:190, addr:e679 i:191, addr:e67a i:192, addr:e67b i:193, addr:e67c i:194, addr:e67d i:195, addr:e67e i:196, addr:e67f i:197, addr:e680 i:198, addr:ffffffff i:199, addr:ffffffff i:200, addr:ffffffff i:201, addr:ffffffff i:202, addr:ffffffff i:203, addr:ffffffff i:204, addr:ffffffff i:205, addr:ffffffff i:206, addr:ffffffff i:207, addr:ffffffff i:208, addr:ffffffff i:209, addr:ffffffff i:210, addr:ffffffff i:211, addr:ffffffff i:212, addr:ffffffff i:213, addr:ffffffff i:214, addr:ffffffff i:215, addr:ffffffff i:216, addr:ffffffff i:217, addr:ffffffff i:218, addr:ffffffff i:219, addr:ffffffff i:220, addr:ffffffff i:221, addr:ffffffff i:222, addr:ffffffff i:223, addr:ffffffff i:224, addr:ffffffff i:225, addr:ffffffff i:226, addr:ffffffff i:227, addr:ffffffff i:228, addr:ffffffff i:229, addr:ffffffff i:230, addr:ffffffff i:231, addr:ffffffff i:232, addr:ffffffff i:233, addr:ffffffff i:234, addr:b032 i:235, addr:b033 i:236, addr:b034 i:237, addr:b035 i:238, addr:b036 i:239, addr:b038 ... i:283, addr:e681 ... i_inline: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): summary nid: 360, ofs: 134, ver: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): blkaddr 2c35 (blkaddr in node 0) <-blkaddr in node is NULL_ADDR F2FS-fs (zram1): expect: seg 14, ofs_in_seg: 53 F2FS-fs (zram1): real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs: 53, 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): node info ino:360, nid:360, nofs:0 F2FS-fs (zram1): ofs_in_addr: 0 F2FS-fs (zram1): end ======== > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> is_alive() >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page >>>> >>>> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? >>>> >>>> if (sum->version != dni->version) { >>>> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", >>>> __func__); >>>> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); >>>> } >> >> The version of summary and dni are all zero. > > Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > >> >> summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 >> blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) >> expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 >> real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 >> ofs: 54, 0 >> node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 >> ofs_in_addr: 0 >> >> Thanks, >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); >>>> >>>> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? >>>> >>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { >>>> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", >>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); >>>> } >>> >>> Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with mismatched >>> node version.". > > Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? > How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > >>> >>> With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> datablock_addr() >>>>> { >>>>> ... >>>>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here due to >>>>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. >>>>> ... >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - gc_data_segment >>>>>>> - is_alive >>>>>>> - datablock_addr >>>>>>> - offset_in_addr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability") >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c >>>>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode *inode, struct inode *dir, >>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) >>>>>>> return page; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ >>>>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { >>>>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ >>>>>>> get_page(page); >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 >>>> . >>>> > . > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel