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 77F68C4740C for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:06:14 +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 48CC32084D for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:06:14 +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="F9DjV2Mz"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="XsDDGJgB" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 48CC32084D 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 1i7HUr-0001Cu-H3; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:06:13 +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 1i7HUp-0001Cn-Gv for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:06:11 +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=htYb4srKbCa1hJE2UKyLhAUSfNB2RDMsGuAk+/0SGeU=; b=F9DjV2MzbMvsE0ENS7Yx7vEyTR e/ETc3kSL6urwarZeEbOFybm+nTwz9ZglnM1UOStLa4DAQkZB0pFIEfjlYZgtF3npxU8Xj/vr0qtn XaXWgU7zsXa7WvMJm5McjxrWFUVAbrZXA2sZwHOfSTGBWzjiPd+zn56+4MVvh42G5GGU=; 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=htYb4srKbCa1hJE2UKyLhAUSfNB2RDMsGuAk+/0SGeU=; b=XsDDGJgBRX4PCQBrVTAIjd0kAa xU+VHdPZOKScBw37qwRUup58OfLiVzcbQkAJXfm1wmLD3KOdU9AprQW20mRqW6e+sQI7+EwnWxGXz Yv2xkh3MSv0OARMBdhzMwT0km3H0rOrExXTmI7EJfWQ3dcPTsRg24h0xntYWeNP1vjNM=; 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 1i7HUm-00FUs6-HQ for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 11:06:11 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D0E9A9812A091B1CFB3D; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:05:59 +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 19:05:57 +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> <05393d3c-b78d-3bb3-ff26-64d2d3939618@huawei.com> <20190909093355.GA27742@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <94ea2431-d4da-f1bf-d949-3c36948aeeca@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:05:48 +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: <20190909093355.GA27742@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Headers-End: 1i7HUm-00FUs6-HQ 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 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 >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> 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