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 C3E67C433EF for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 08:17:10 +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 82C822086D for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 08:17:10 +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="MA8Rp4o5"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="AsN9spWG" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 82C822086D 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-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7ErG-00074x-1B; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:17:10 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i7ErE-00072X-3E for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:17:08 +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:References:CC:To:From: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=mVQ4jz017PbSupHHijnbZ+1QpvnZ93IeZQVArY5TpG4=; b=MA8Rp4o5bH1+sV9YBbobHmfLoR Gzed6qUpMFitbov7zfcljjR+N8JRaDVA7urndV4GTrZ3b8vn+FLtNaafZGzn1w+waIW/qjKiQHUH0 CnkLbrHxfuAf3YK3p2jNocuXD/fTulRoosJdLSuGnlTLUrYleuSaOParN/QWg9X4oh7o=; 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:References:CC:To:From: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=mVQ4jz017PbSupHHijnbZ+1QpvnZ93IeZQVArY5TpG4=; b=AsN9spWG3LmqwSULjXYTRmHCnR dUosbQTpCywiJws0jlikZZmon6cUkhyPcHkNc/Ya/SBlcNnA/nIAfXFtJlWmpkKbDDmDqqbvScIUi 3p5Vzhqzp04rbDpMTUV8I7aSQTlsOWSOBrxZyTr9WCBkD/cSTWtbvUXr2mZOaj1kXssw=; Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32] helo=huawei.com) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1i7ErB-005SA6-RU for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:17:08 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS403-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D6650EBFA82F2F235BB9; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:16:58 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.134.22.195] (10.134.22.195) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:16:54 +0800 From: Chao Yu To: Jaegeuk Kim , Chao Yu 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> Message-ID: <873f4c07-5694-6554-5266-81812a6bd617@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 16:16:35 +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: <79228eaa-776f-da89-89f8-a9b5a90034b6@huawei.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Headers-End: 1i7ErB-005SA6-RU 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 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 >>>>> --- >>>>> 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