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, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,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 6C310C00307 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:34:08 +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 3F7972086D for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:34:08 +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="RnilPnUF"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="PbCJLUzH"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="jRi1VKXV" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 3F7972086D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org 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-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7G3j-0004S0-SJ; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:34:07 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7G3i-0004Rt-B0 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:34:06 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: 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=JJMM8EuBBXKxM3EQJdYitULsRQzmrc0tnjrBtNsVipg=; b=RnilPnUFnZaBQGBuo7wJXe1s4t 8l7Fp3gvp/jL6VhQYuJomllJqA0LTrDt/dXWQ0z1bdIRyo2DX79RzLxvbYsYjKXE/1W4ALo1B3sUd y7muITf2Z/18/laO5pJRnoEYWLm7H3zSNi5HKBF/SbjYlsSyROUm3Fw/HaA0dK81LHS0=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=JJMM8EuBBXKxM3EQJdYitULsRQzmrc0tnjrBtNsVipg=; b=PbCJLUzHyndho+oZghoVVRmLWC qd51YEBo2Zmmkm5NYoVauqnvb92PUqJEE/ds706X00VBOGIh385BdX22ozTaRTk5l2YYid55Hjac0 nMDE8/GABKO8N3Q22HQ0pmrwLLHvJYj/9hjawwfcKO4xMPK/OhJyK9qG7AcWefmiN2TU=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1i7G3g-00Eubb-9N for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:34:06 +0000 Received: from localhost (unknown [148.69.85.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 036E02086D; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:33:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1568021638; bh=yZJ3ka986SfLwgSg1wqiKBcarbCnbCLNWxBepkM70Ok=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=jRi1VKXVcj2HwNr6Z3ZnGZ7MHdDUjZLdCTeMaABs+qGLUkL5c5ui6XCXwQ0zirv3Y jfX/7rMpui2j8HFrzgPp5Fu4ov8ixqq1faYbTOep8M7jjCWuPU3QWuquzew0EYjIGM rCBxubdVTHt6WxfRDBl95MbCGW0x8tOvDar0aZhE= Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:33:55 +0100 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Message-ID: <20190909093355.GA27742@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> 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> <05393d3c-b78d-3bb3-ff26-64d2d3939618@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <05393d3c-b78d-3bb3-ff26-64d2d3939618@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) X-Headers-End: 1i7G3g-00Eubb-9N 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 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 > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> 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