From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: fsstress-induced corruption reproduced Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 14:13:24 -0600 Message-ID: <4B424BE4.3030605@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11710 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753991Ab0ADUN1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:13:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Ts'o wrote: > One of the things which has been annoying me for a while now is a > hard-to-reproduce xfsqa failure in test #13 (fsstress), which causes the > a test failure because the file system found to be inconsistent: > > Inode NNN, i_blocks is X, should be Y. Interesting, this apparently has gotten much worse since 2.6.32. I wrote an xfstests reproducer, and couldn't hit it on .32; hit it right off on 2.6.33-rc2. Probably should find out why ;) I'll go take a look. -Eric > I finally reproduced it; the problem happens when we fallocate() a > region of the file which we had recently written, and which is still in > the page cache marked as delayed allocation blocks. When we finally > write those blocks out, since they are marked BH_Delay, > ext4_get_blocks() calls ext4_da_update_reserve_space(), which ends up > bumping i_blocks a second time and charging the blocks against the > user's quota a second time. Oops. > > Fortunately the fsck problem is one that will be fixed with a preen (and > if quota is enabled, a quotacheck), so it's not super serious, but we > should fix it when we have a chance. If anyone has time to look at it, > please let me know. Otherwise, I'll put it on my todo list. I don't > consider seriously urgent since the case is highly unlikely to occur in > real life, and it doesn't have any security implications; the worst an > attacker could do is end up charging excesss quota to herself. > > I've included a simple reproduction case below; if you run this program, > it will create a file "test-file" in the current working directory which > will appear to be 32k, even though it is really only 16k long, and if > you then unmount the test file system and run e2fsck -p on it, you will get > the error message: > > Inode XXX, i_blocks is 64, should be 32. FIXED. > > - Ted > > #define _GNU_SOURCE > > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > #include > > #define BUFSIZE 1024 > > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > int i, fd, ret; > char buf[BUFSIZE]; > > fd = open("test-file", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0644); > if (fd < 0) { > perror("open"); > exit(1); > } > memset(&buf, 0, BUFSIZE); > for (i=0; i < 16; i++) { > ret = write(fd, &buf, BUFSIZE); > if (ret < 0) { > perror("write"); > exit(1); > } > if (ret != BUFSIZE) { > fprintf(stderr, "Write return expected %d, got %d\n", > BUFSIZE, ret); > exit(1); > } > } > ret = fallocate(fd, 0, 0, 16384); > if (ret < 0) { > perror("fallocate"); > exit(1); > } > ret = fsync(fd); > if (ret < 0) { > perror("fsync"); > exit(1); > } > ret = close(fd); > if (ret < 0) { > perror("close"); > exit(1); > } > exit(0); > } > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html