Reply-To: skinsbursky@virtuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] autofs: set compat flag on sbi when daemon uses
 32bit addressation
To: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Cc: autofs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org,
        ldv@altlinux.org
References: <20170901110906.2669.1577.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <20170901112144.2669.1453.stgit@localhost.localdomain>
 <e86c66c6-7430-00e2-518a-cb2b87ab4130@themaw.net>
 <b35f6e37-5138-7ede-4c6c-0aa016645977@virtuozzo.com>
 <a5488db7-e42a-753c-08ba-008579c1ecd6@themaw.net>
From: Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@virtuozzo.com>
Message-ID: <889ec02e-6146-c180-642b-017f6ca71f8a@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:39:21 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a5488db7-e42a-753c-08ba-008579c1ecd6@themaw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2017 11:39:27.7432 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM4PR0802MB2242
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3335
Lines: 103


14.09.2017 13:29, Ian Kent пишет:
> On 14/09/17 17:24, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote:
>>
>>
>> 14.09.2017 02:38, Ian Kent пишет:
>>> On 01/09/17 19:21, Stanislav Kinsburskiy wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskiy <skinsbursky@virtuozzo.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h  |    3 +++
>>>>  fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c |    3 +++
>>>>  fs/autofs4/inode.c     |    4 +++-
>>>>  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h b/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>>>> index 4737615..3da105f 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>>>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/autofs_i.h
>>>> @@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ struct autofs_sb_info {
>>>>  	struct list_head active_list;
>>>>  	struct list_head expiring_list;
>>>>  	struct rcu_head rcu;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>>>> +	unsigned is32bit:1;
>>>> +#endif
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>>  static inline struct autofs_sb_info *autofs4_sbi(struct super_block *sb)
>>>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>>>> index b7c816f..467d6c4 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/dev-ioctl.c
>>>> @@ -397,6 +397,9 @@ static int autofs_dev_ioctl_setpipefd(struct file *fp,
>>>>  		sbi->pipefd = pipefd;
>>>>  		sbi->pipe = pipe;
>>>>  		sbi->catatonic = 0;
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>>>> +		sbi->is32bit = is_compat_task();
>>>> +#endif
>>>>  	}
>>>>  out:
>>>>  	put_pid(new_pid);
>>>> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/inode.c b/fs/autofs4/inode.c
>>>> index 09e7d68..21d3c0b 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/autofs4/inode.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/autofs4/inode.c
>>>> @@ -301,7 +301,9 @@ int autofs4_fill_super(struct super_block *s, void *data, int silent)
>>>>  	} else {
>>>>  		sbi->oz_pgrp = get_task_pid(current, PIDTYPE_PGID);
>>>>  	}
>>>> -
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>>>> +	sbi->is32bit = is_compat_task();
>>>> +#endif
>>>>  	if (autofs_type_trigger(sbi->type))
>>>>  		__managed_dentry_set_managed(root);
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not sure about this.
>>>
>>> Don't you think it would be better to avoid the in code #ifdefs by doing some
>>> checks and defines in the header file and defining what's need to just use
>>> is_compat_task().
>>>
>>
>> Yes, might be...
>>
>>> Not sure 2 patches are needed for this either ......
>>>
>>
>> Well, I found this issue occasionally.
> 
> I'm wondering what the symptoms are?
> 

Size of struct autofs_v5_packet is 300 bytes for x86 and 304 bytes for x86_64.
Which means, that 32bit task can read more than size of autofs_v5_packet on 64bit kernel.

>> And, frankly speaking, it's not clear to me, whether this issue is important at all, so I wanted to clarify this first.
>> Thanks to O_DIRECT, the only way to catch the issue is to try to read more, than expected, in compat task (that's how I found it).
> 
> Right, the O_DIRECT patch from Linus was expected to fix the structure
> alignment problem. The stuct field offsets are ok aren't they?
> 

Yes, they are ok.

>> I don't see any other flaw so far. And if so, that, probably, we shouldn't care about the issue at all.
>> What do you think?
> 
> If we are seeing hangs, incorrect struct fields or similar something
> should be done about it but if all is actually working ok then the
> O_DIRECT fix is doing it's job and further changes aren't necessary.
> 

Well, yes. O_DIRECT fix covers the issue.
Ok then.
Thanks for the clarification!

> Ian
>