* [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
@ 2019-09-06 10:54 Chao Yu
2019-09-06 23:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-06 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jaegeuk; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
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.
- gc_data_segment
- is_alive
- datablock_addr
- offset_in_addr
Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability")
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
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
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-06 10:54 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() Chao Yu
@ 2019-09-06 23:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-07 1:23 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-06 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
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?
>
> - gc_data_segment
> - is_alive
> - datablock_addr
> - offset_in_addr
>
> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure scalability")
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> ---
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-06 23:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2019-09-07 1:23 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 7:44 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-07 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
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?
is_alive()
{
...
node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page
source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node);
...
}
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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-07 1:23 ` Chao Yu
@ 2019-09-09 7:44 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-09 7:58 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
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?
>
> 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);
}
>
> 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);
}
> ...
> }
>
> 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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-09 7:44 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2019-09-09 7:58 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 8:16 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
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.
>
>>
>> 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);
> }
>
>>
>> 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.".
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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-09 7:58 ` Chao Yu
@ 2019-09-09 8:16 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 8:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
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
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
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.".
>
> 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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-09 8:16 ` Chao Yu
@ 2019-09-09 8:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-09 9:18 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
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?
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-09 8:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2019-09-09 9:18 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 9:33 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-09 9:18 ` Chao Yu
@ 2019-09-09 9:33 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-09 11:05 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 9:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> 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
So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before
write_inode()?
> 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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-09 9:33 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2019-09-09 11:05 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 14:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-09 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>> 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
>
> So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before
> write_inode()?
I guess so. :)
Thanks,
>
>> 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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-09 11:05 ` Chao Yu
@ 2019-09-09 14:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-10 0:59 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2019-09-09 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> 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?
Can we update inode before finally putting ipage?
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before
> > write_inode()?
>
> I guess so. :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >> 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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive()
2019-09-09 14:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2019-09-10 0:59 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2019-09-10 0:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 2019/9/9 22:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019/9/9 17:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> 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?
>
> Can we update inode before finally putting ipage?
Agreed.
Thanks,
>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> So, the theory is the block is indeed valid and the address was updated before
>>> write_inode()?
>>
>> I guess so. :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>> 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 <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-09-10 1:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-09-06 10:54 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() Chao Yu
2019-09-06 23:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-07 1:23 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 7:44 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-09 7:58 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 8:16 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 8:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-09 9:18 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 9:33 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-09 11:05 ` Chao Yu
2019-09-09 14:37 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2019-09-10 0:59 ` Chao Yu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).