On Sat 17-02-24 15:41:43, Baokun Li wrote:
> On 2024/2/14 0:58, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Fri 26-01-24 16:57:13, Baokun Li wrote:
> > > We can easily trigger a BUG_ON by using the following commands:
> > >
> > > mount /dev/$disk /tmp/test
> > > echo 2147483650 > /sys/fs/ext4/$disk/mb_group_prealloc
> > > echo test > /tmp/test/file && sync
> > >
> > > ==================================================================
> > > kernel BUG at fs/ext4/mballoc.c:2029!
> > > invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
> > > CPU: 3 PID: 320 Comm: kworker/u36:1 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc1 #462
> > > RIP: 0010:mb_mark_used+0x358/0x370
> > > [...]
> > > Call Trace:
> > > ext4_mb_use_best_found+0x56/0x140
> > > ext4_mb_complex_scan_group+0x196/0x2f0
> > > ext4_mb_regular_allocator+0xa92/0xf00
> > > ext4_mb_new_blocks+0x302/0xbc0
> > > ext4_ext_map_blocks+0x95a/0xef0
> > > ext4_map_blocks+0x2b1/0x680
> > > ext4_do_writepages+0x733/0xbd0
> > > [...]
> > > ==================================================================
> > >
> > > In ext4_mb_normalize_group_request():
> > > ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mb_group_prealloc;
> > >
> > > Here fe_len is of type int, but s_mb_group_prealloc is of type unsigned
> > > int, so setting s_mb_group_prealloc to 2147483650 overflows fe_len to a
> > > negative number, which ultimately triggers a BUG_ON() in mb_mark_used().
> > >
> > > Therefore, we add attr_pointer_pi (aka positive int attr pointer) with a
> > > value range of 0-INT_MAX to avoid the above problem. In addition to the
> > > mb_group_prealloc sysfs interface, the following interfaces also have uint
> > > to int conversions that result in overflows, and are also fixed.
> > >
> > > err_ratelimit_burst
> > > msg_ratelimit_burst
> > > warning_ratelimit_burst
> > > err_ratelimit_interval_ms
> > > msg_ratelimit_interval_ms
> > > warning_ratelimit_interval_ms
> > > mb_best_avail_max_trim_order
> > >
> > > CC: [email protected]
> > > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <[email protected]>
> > I don't think you need to change s_mb_group_prealloc here and then restrict
> > it even further in the next patch. I'd just leave it alone here.
> Yes, we could put the next patch before this one, but using
> s_mb_group_prealloc as an example makes it easier to understand
> why the attr_pointer_pi case is added here.There are several other
> variables that don't have more convincing examples.
Yes, I think reordering would be good. Because I've read the convertion and
started wondering: "is this enough?"
> > Also I think that limiting mb_best_avail_max_trim_order to 64 instead of
> > INT_MAX will make us more resilient to surprises in the future :) But I
> > don't really insist.
> >
> > Honza
> I think it's enough here to make sure that mb_best_avail_max_trim_order
> is a positive number, since we always make sure that min_order
> is not less than 0, as follows:
>
> order = fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) - 1;
> min_order = order - sbi->s_mb_best_avail_max_trim_order;
> if (min_order < 0)
> min_order = 0;
>
> An oversized mb_best_avail_max_trim_order can be interpreted as
> always being CR_ANY_FREE. ????
Well, s_mb_best_avail_max_trim_order is not about allocation passes but
about how many times are we willing to shorten the goal extent to half and
still use the advanced free blocks search. And I agree that the mballoc
code is careful enough that large numbers don't matter there but still why
allowing storing garbage values? It is nicer to tell sysadmin he did
something wrong right away.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
On 2024/2/23 20:05, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sat 17-02-24 15:41:43, Baokun Li wrote:
>> On 2024/2/14 0:58, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Fri 26-01-24 16:57:13, Baokun Li wrote:
>>>> We can easily trigger a BUG_ON by using the following commands:
>>>>
>>>> mount /dev/$disk /tmp/test
>>>> echo 2147483650 > /sys/fs/ext4/$disk/mb_group_prealloc
>>>> echo test > /tmp/test/file && sync
>>>>
>>>> ==================================================================
>>>> kernel BUG at fs/ext4/mballoc.c:2029!
>>>> invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
>>>> CPU: 3 PID: 320 Comm: kworker/u36:1 Not tainted 6.8.0-rc1 #462
>>>> RIP: 0010:mb_mark_used+0x358/0x370
>>>> [...]
>>>> Call Trace:
>>>> ext4_mb_use_best_found+0x56/0x140
>>>> ext4_mb_complex_scan_group+0x196/0x2f0
>>>> ext4_mb_regular_allocator+0xa92/0xf00
>>>> ext4_mb_new_blocks+0x302/0xbc0
>>>> ext4_ext_map_blocks+0x95a/0xef0
>>>> ext4_map_blocks+0x2b1/0x680
>>>> ext4_do_writepages+0x733/0xbd0
>>>> [...]
>>>> ==================================================================
>>>>
>>>> In ext4_mb_normalize_group_request():
>>>> ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mb_group_prealloc;
>>>>
>>>> Here fe_len is of type int, but s_mb_group_prealloc is of type unsigned
>>>> int, so setting s_mb_group_prealloc to 2147483650 overflows fe_len to a
>>>> negative number, which ultimately triggers a BUG_ON() in mb_mark_used().
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, we add attr_pointer_pi (aka positive int attr pointer) with a
>>>> value range of 0-INT_MAX to avoid the above problem. In addition to the
>>>> mb_group_prealloc sysfs interface, the following interfaces also have uint
>>>> to int conversions that result in overflows, and are also fixed.
>>>>
>>>> err_ratelimit_burst
>>>> msg_ratelimit_burst
>>>> warning_ratelimit_burst
>>>> err_ratelimit_interval_ms
>>>> msg_ratelimit_interval_ms
>>>> warning_ratelimit_interval_ms
>>>> mb_best_avail_max_trim_order
>>>>
>>>> CC: [email protected]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <[email protected]>
>>> I don't think you need to change s_mb_group_prealloc here and then restrict
>>> it even further in the next patch. I'd just leave it alone here.
>> Yes, we could put the next patch before this one, but using
>> s_mb_group_prealloc as an example makes it easier to understand
>> why the attr_pointer_pi case is added here.There are several other
>> variables that don't have more convincing examples.
> Yes, I think reordering would be good. Because I've read the convertion and
> started wondering: "is this enough?"
Well, I will put the next patch before this one in the next version.
>>> Also I think that limiting mb_best_avail_max_trim_order to 64 instead of
>>> INT_MAX will make us more resilient to surprises in the future :) But I
>>> don't really insist.
>>>
>>> Honza
>> I think it's enough here to make sure that mb_best_avail_max_trim_order
>> is a positive number, since we always make sure that min_order
>> is not less than 0, as follows:
>>
>> order = fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) - 1;
>> min_order = order - sbi->s_mb_best_avail_max_trim_order;
>> if (min_order < 0)
>> min_order = 0;
>>
>> An oversized mb_best_avail_max_trim_order can be interpreted as
>> always being CR_ANY_FREE. ????
> Well, s_mb_best_avail_max_trim_order is not about allocation passes but
> about how many times are we willing to shorten the goal extent to half and
> still use the advanced free blocks search.
Yes, this means that in CR1.5, in case the original request is satisfied,
we allow allocation of blocks with an order of (goal_extent_order -
s_mb_best_avail_max_trim_order) to accelerate block allocation.
> And I agree that the mballoc
> code is careful enough that large numbers don't matter there but still why
> allowing storing garbage values? It is nicer to tell sysadmin he did
> something wrong right away.
>
> Honza
Yes, we shouldn't allow storing rubbish values, otherwise it may
mislead admins, I will add an extra type to check it.
Thanks!
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
.