From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: ext4 regression in v5.9-rc2 from e7bfb5c9bb3d on ro fs with overlapped bitmaps
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 01:14:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201005081454.GA493107@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wj-H5BYCU_kKiOK=B9sN3BtRzL4pnne2AJPyf54nQ+d=w@mail.gmail.com>
Ran into an ext4 regression when testing upgrades to 5.9-rc kernels:
Commit e7bfb5c9bb3d ("ext4: handle add_system_zone() failure in
ext4_setup_system_zone()") breaks mounting of read-only ext4 filesystems
with intentionally overlapping bitmap blocks.
On an always-read-only filesystem explicitly marked with
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS, prior to that commit, it's safe to
point all the block and inode bitmaps to a single block of all 1s,
because a read-only filesystem will never allocate or free any blocks or
inodes.
However, after that commit, the block validity check rejects such
filesystems with -EUCLEAN and "failed to initialize system zone (-117)".
This causes systems that previously worked correctly to fail when
upgrading to v5.9-rc2 or later.
This was obviously a bugfix, and I'm not suggesting that it should be
reverted; it looks like this effectively worked by accident before,
because the block_validity check wasn't fully functional. However, this
does break real systems, and I'd like to get some kind of regression fix
in before 5.9 final if possible. I think it would suffice to make
block_validity default to false if and only if
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS is set.
Does that seem like a reasonable fix?
Here's a quick sketch of a patch, which I've tested and confirmed to
work:
----- 8< -----
Subject: [PATCH] Fix ext4 regression in v5.9-rc2 on ro fs with overlapped bitmaps
Commit e7bfb5c9bb3d ("ext4: handle add_system_zone() failure in
ext4_setup_system_zone()") breaks mounting of read-only ext4 filesystems
with intentionally overlapping bitmap blocks.
On an always-read-only filesystem explicitly marked with
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS, prior to that commit, it's safe to
point all the block and inode bitmaps to a single block of all 1s,
because a read-only filesystem will never allocate or free any blocks or
inodes.
However, after that commit, the block validity check rejects such
filesystems with -EUCLEAN and "failed to initialize system zone (-117)".
This causes systems that previously worked correctly to fail when
upgrading to v5.9-rc2 or later.
Fix this by defaulting block_validity to off when
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS is set.
Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Fixes: e7bfb5c9bb3d ("ext4: handle add_system_zone() failure in ext4_setup_system_zone()")
---
fs/ext4/ext4.h | 2 ++
fs/ext4/super.c | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
index 523e00d7b392..7874028fa864 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
+++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
@@ -1834,6 +1834,7 @@ static inline bool ext4_verity_in_progress(struct inode *inode)
#define EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_METADATA_CSUM 0x0400
#define EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_READONLY 0x1000
#define EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_PROJECT 0x2000
+#define EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_SHARED_BLOCKS 0x4000
#define EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_VERITY 0x8000
#define EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_COMPRESSION 0x0001
@@ -1930,6 +1931,7 @@ EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_FUNCS(bigalloc, BIGALLOC)
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_FUNCS(metadata_csum, METADATA_CSUM)
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_FUNCS(readonly, READONLY)
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_FUNCS(project, PROJECT)
+EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_FUNCS(shared_blocks, SHARED_BLOCKS)
EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_FUNCS(verity, VERITY)
EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_FUNCS(compression, COMPRESSION)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index ea425b49b345..f57a7e966e44 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -3954,7 +3954,8 @@ static int ext4_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
else
set_opt(sb, ERRORS_RO);
/* block_validity enabled by default; disable with noblock_validity */
- set_opt(sb, BLOCK_VALIDITY);
+ if (!ext4_has_feature_shared_blocks(sb))
+ set_opt(sb, BLOCK_VALIDITY);
if (def_mount_opts & EXT4_DEFM_DISCARD)
set_opt(sb, DISCARD);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-05 8:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-04 23:17 Linux 5.9-rc8 Linus Torvalds
2020-10-05 8:14 ` Josh Triplett [this message]
2020-10-05 9:46 ` ext4 regression in v5.9-rc2 from e7bfb5c9bb3d on ro fs with overlapped bitmaps Jan Kara
2020-10-05 10:16 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-05 16:19 ` Jan Kara
2020-10-05 16:20 ` Jan Kara
2020-10-05 17:36 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-06 0:04 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-06 0:32 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-06 2:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-06 3:18 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-06 5:03 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-06 6:03 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-06 13:35 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-07 8:03 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-07 14:32 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-07 20:14 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-08 2:10 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-08 17:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-08 22:38 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-09 2:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-09 19:08 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-08 22:22 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-09 14:37 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-10-09 20:30 ` Josh Triplett
2021-01-10 18:41 ` Malicious fs images was " Pavel Machek
2021-01-11 18:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-01-11 19:39 ` Eric Biggers
2021-01-12 21:43 ` Theodore Ts'o
2021-01-12 22:28 ` Pavel Machek
2021-01-13 5:09 ` Theodore Ts'o
2020-10-08 2:57 ` Andreas Dilger
2020-10-08 19:12 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-08 19:25 ` Andreas Dilger
2020-10-08 22:28 ` Josh Triplett
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201005081454.GA493107@localhost \
--to=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).