2019-04-26 09:59:25

by Chao Yu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree

When calculating .f_bfree value in f2fs_statfs(), sbi->unusable_block_count
can be increased after the judgment condition, result in overflow of
.f_bfree in later calculation. This patch fixes to use a temporary signed
variable to save the calculation result of .f_bfree.

if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
buf->f_bfree = 0;
else
buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
---
fs/f2fs/super.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index 2376bb01b5c4..fcc9793dbc2c 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -1216,6 +1216,7 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
u64 id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
block_t total_count, user_block_count, start_count;
u64 avail_node_count;
+ long long bfree;

total_count = le64_to_cpu(sbi->raw_super->block_count);
user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
@@ -1226,10 +1227,12 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
buf->f_blocks = total_count - start_count;
buf->f_bfree = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) -
sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
- if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
+
+ bfree = buf->f_bfree - sbi->unusable_block_count;
+ if (unlikely(bfree < 0))
buf->f_bfree = 0;
else
- buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
+ buf->f_bfree = bfree;

if (buf->f_bfree > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks)
buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree -
--
2.18.0.rc1


2019-04-26 09:59:23

by Chao Yu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to handle error in f2fs_disable_checkpoint()

In f2fs_disable_checkpoint(), it needs to detect and propagate error
number returned from f2fs_write_checkpoint().

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
---
fs/f2fs/super.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index fcc9793dbc2c..ad0faa19cb69 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -1507,9 +1507,12 @@ static int f2fs_disable_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
cpc.reason = CP_PAUSE;
set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED);
- f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
+ err = f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
+ if (err)
+ goto out_unlock;

sbi->unusable_block_count = 0;
+out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
restore_flag:
sbi->sb->s_flags = s_flags; /* Restore MS_RDONLY status */
--
2.18.0.rc1

2019-04-28 13:51:20

by Jaegeuk Kim

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree

On 04/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> When calculating .f_bfree value in f2fs_statfs(), sbi->unusable_block_count
> can be increased after the judgment condition, result in overflow of
> .f_bfree in later calculation. This patch fixes to use a temporary signed
> variable to save the calculation result of .f_bfree.
>
> if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
> buf->f_bfree = 0;
> else
> buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;

Do we just need stat_lock for this?

>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/super.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> index 2376bb01b5c4..fcc9793dbc2c 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> @@ -1216,6 +1216,7 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
> u64 id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
> block_t total_count, user_block_count, start_count;
> u64 avail_node_count;
> + long long bfree;
>
> total_count = le64_to_cpu(sbi->raw_super->block_count);
> user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
> @@ -1226,10 +1227,12 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
> buf->f_blocks = total_count - start_count;
> buf->f_bfree = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) -
> sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
> - if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
> +
> + bfree = buf->f_bfree - sbi->unusable_block_count;
> + if (unlikely(bfree < 0))
> buf->f_bfree = 0;
> else
> - buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
> + buf->f_bfree = bfree;
>
> if (buf->f_bfree > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks)
> buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree -
> --
> 2.18.0.rc1

2019-04-29 14:16:31

by Chao Yu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree

On 2019-4-28 21:47, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 04/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>> When calculating .f_bfree value in f2fs_statfs(), sbi->unusable_block_count
>> can be increased after the judgment condition, result in overflow of
>> .f_bfree in later calculation. This patch fixes to use a temporary signed
>> variable to save the calculation result of .f_bfree.
>>
>> if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
>> buf->f_bfree = 0;
>> else
>> buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>
> Do we just need stat_lock for this?

Like we access other stat value in statfs(), we just need the instantaneous
value of .unusable_block_count, so we don't need additional stat_lock, right?

Thanks,

>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 7 +++++--
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> index 2376bb01b5c4..fcc9793dbc2c 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> @@ -1216,6 +1216,7 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>> u64 id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
>> block_t total_count, user_block_count, start_count;
>> u64 avail_node_count;
>> + long long bfree;
>>
>> total_count = le64_to_cpu(sbi->raw_super->block_count);
>> user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
>> @@ -1226,10 +1227,12 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>> buf->f_blocks = total_count - start_count;
>> buf->f_bfree = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) -
>> sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
>> - if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
>> +
>> + bfree = buf->f_bfree - sbi->unusable_block_count;
>> + if (unlikely(bfree < 0))
>> buf->f_bfree = 0;
>> else
>> - buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>> + buf->f_bfree = bfree;
>>
>> if (buf->f_bfree > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks)
>> buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree -
>> --
>> 2.18.0.rc1

2019-04-30 02:55:12

by Jaegeuk Kim

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree

On 04/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2019-4-28 21:47, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 04/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> When calculating .f_bfree value in f2fs_statfs(), sbi->unusable_block_count
> >> can be increased after the judgment condition, result in overflow of
> >> .f_bfree in later calculation. This patch fixes to use a temporary signed
> >> variable to save the calculation result of .f_bfree.
> >>
> >> if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
> >> buf->f_bfree = 0;
> >> else
> >> buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
> >
> > Do we just need stat_lock for this?
>
> Like we access other stat value in statfs(), we just need the instantaneous
> value of .unusable_block_count, so we don't need additional stat_lock, right?

What I've concerend is whether or not this fixes all the inconsistent values.
The original intention was providing stats in best effort, so we wouldn't use
any lock.

>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> fs/f2fs/super.c | 7 +++++--
> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> index 2376bb01b5c4..fcc9793dbc2c 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> @@ -1216,6 +1216,7 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
> >> u64 id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
> >> block_t total_count, user_block_count, start_count;
> >> u64 avail_node_count;
> >> + long long bfree;
> >>
> >> total_count = le64_to_cpu(sbi->raw_super->block_count);
> >> user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
> >> @@ -1226,10 +1227,12 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
> >> buf->f_blocks = total_count - start_count;
> >> buf->f_bfree = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) -
> >> sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
> >> - if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
> >> +
> >> + bfree = buf->f_bfree - sbi->unusable_block_count;
> >> + if (unlikely(bfree < 0))
> >> buf->f_bfree = 0;
> >> else
> >> - buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
> >> + buf->f_bfree = bfree;
> >>
> >> if (buf->f_bfree > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks)
> >> buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree -
> >> --
> >> 2.18.0.rc1

2019-04-30 03:16:56

by Chao Yu

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to avoid potential negative .f_bfree

On 2019/4/30 10:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 04/29, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019-4-28 21:47, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 04/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> When calculating .f_bfree value in f2fs_statfs(), sbi->unusable_block_count
>>>> can be increased after the judgment condition, result in overflow of
>>>> .f_bfree in later calculation. This patch fixes to use a temporary signed
>>>> variable to save the calculation result of .f_bfree.
>>>>
>>>> if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
>>>> buf->f_bfree = 0;
>>>> else
>>>> buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>
>>> Do we just need stat_lock for this?
>>
>> Like we access other stat value in statfs(), we just need the instantaneous
>> value of .unusable_block_count, so we don't need additional stat_lock, right?
>
> What I've concerend is whether or not this fixes all the inconsistent values.
> The original intention was providing stats in best effort, so we wouldn't use
> any lock.

Hmm.. I've made a patch to protect .unusable_block_count update/access as below,
how about merging this two patch, in addition, in this patch, let's add
stat_lock around accessing .f_bfree/.unusable_block_count.

From b927209d10fc222243037d05ccc899f48569e773 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:51:22 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to cover sbi->unusable_block_count with stat_lock

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
---
fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 4 ++++
fs/f2fs/segment.c | 5 ++++-
fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 ++
3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
index f6ba9a743a2d..526a70ea7433 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
@@ -1536,7 +1536,11 @@ static int do_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct
cp_control *cpc)
clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY);
clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_CP);
clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_QUOTA_SKIP_FLUSH);
+
+ spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
sbi->unusable_block_count = 0;
+ spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
+
__set_cp_next_pack(sbi);

/*
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 5c3f07540db1..f10c394cf467 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -2203,8 +2203,11 @@ static void update_sit_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
block_t blkaddr, int del)
* before, we must track that to know how much space we
* really have.
*/
- if (f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map))
+ if (f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map)) {
+ spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
sbi->unusable_block_count++;
+ spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
+ }
}

if (f2fs_test_and_clear_bit(offset, se->discard_map))
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index 1a05a636bd2a..dd6e7b351b58 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -1546,7 +1546,9 @@ static int f2fs_disable_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED);
f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);

+ spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
sbi->unusable_block_count = 0;
+ spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
mutex_unlock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
restore_flag:
sbi->sb->s_flags = s_flags; /* Restore MS_RDONLY status */
--
2.18.0.rc1



>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 7 +++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> index 2376bb01b5c4..fcc9793dbc2c 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> @@ -1216,6 +1216,7 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>>>> u64 id = huge_encode_dev(sb->s_bdev->bd_dev);
>>>> block_t total_count, user_block_count, start_count;
>>>> u64 avail_node_count;
>>>> + long long bfree;
>>>>
>>>> total_count = le64_to_cpu(sbi->raw_super->block_count);
>>>> user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
>>>> @@ -1226,10 +1227,12 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>>>> buf->f_blocks = total_count - start_count;
>>>> buf->f_bfree = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) -
>>>> sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
>>>> - if (unlikely(buf->f_bfree <= sbi->unusable_block_count))
>>>> +
>>>> + bfree = buf->f_bfree - sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>> + if (unlikely(bfree < 0))
>>>> buf->f_bfree = 0;
>>>> else
>>>> - buf->f_bfree -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>>>> + buf->f_bfree = bfree;
>>>>
>>>> if (buf->f_bfree > F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks)
>>>> buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree -
>>>> --
>>>> 2.18.0.rc1
> .
>