From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4 regression in v5.9-rc2 from e7bfb5c9bb3d on ro fs with overlapped bitmaps
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 18:20:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201005162053.GG4225@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201005081454.GA493107@localhost>
On Mon 05-10-20 01:14:54, Josh Triplett wrote:
> 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()")
The patch looks fine to me. Thanks for fixing this and for educating me
about the feature :) You can add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Honza
> ---
> 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);
>
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-05 16:20 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 ` ext4 regression in v5.9-rc2 from e7bfb5c9bb3d on ro fs with overlapped bitmaps Josh Triplett
2020-10-05 9:46 ` Jan Kara
2020-10-05 10:16 ` Josh Triplett
2020-10-05 16:19 ` Jan Kara
2020-10-05 16:20 ` Jan Kara [this message]
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=20201005162053.GG4225@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--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).