Received: by 2002:a25:c593:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp4363226ybe; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 08:15:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqykKdOcw5JJo0q7ORv29rdqcSBnSnroBws4Z+I1l2KBN8I3HXsPKtYuxkbGIucJ6OYoiJCD X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:fc0f:: with SMTP id ov15mr20083076ejb.234.1568042124677; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:15:24 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1568042124; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ISquzSsq7z/CkRaTammW6Q6GOvOHgq+frFFwfMvyNqgQlO2wzKVCCv883PsTZfffqx pfs01gHl3409vjDBm57eUADh9RGDgO8qA5fvU5DeyZFZRbjmbH42WZeMZG4Uk2rRvwQ5 A7G/tjOFpCQ074mSIcNlEfQ+Aa0JG4PVCkG/QpbQBvI/K8Y6Dg4dG/crHL6CYJlXCoCe jCTh5SChKXt6opfjkRmIoi1w+MVWXivUMgVSUnCHT4OZcv49afYCnYEgRU4U1GodlGiP BDA205DRAUNgm7kO/Iad7BpbopnayD6yMd4Z32NoPdmrgGuHCBsZVIczrerZ2fSYyEjW oYbQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=EJvnVDA6MNRmogVD4wgts+7R/ZMBSZ2ZGnvrHzKV97Q=; b=JOdutj044K7qF9i7p/8Q+RLfnqb7rgn6JUTFtV6a4WYXpDaZhzTwK/yTrxOBPRuThg e1Nf/A+D9rO9hWAeSDQyEp0IllAXyd2LDxZz53w/qRCCssYJSCoo5OJ4D2yuWFL6AwhH CqXLJS65AAzVsVYTSUDN45ITmkbN45utiZMMKECtCqHQeLgUnJlvRtpcVFm1WB6/WjO5 Lv2u2QRuoN1QLeQYZcv8Kt/TdI8buHyAXWoGg+bjP3DNubbKHLVd0gnGHDKger5kUC3K ECfzPA2bujBQt4p1feCoBHeH+J2CJf6pBHsQfQtu5VeMgBJX/mpTXceJBTLG/SG3cpEH s7TA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ca26si7698819ejb.363.2019.09.09.08.14.58; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:15:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389650AbfIIJTN (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:19:13 -0400 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:40086 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728862AbfIIJTN (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 05:19:13 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.60]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id D19801565FE13358F98D; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:19:09 +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 17:19:04 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to avoid accessing uninitialized field of inode page in is_alive() To: Jaegeuk Kim CC: Chao Yu , , 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> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <05393d3c-b78d-3bb3-ff26-64d2d3939618@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:18:47 +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: <20190909083725.GB25724@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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 >>>> . >>>> > . >