Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: fix assertion failure in xfs_vm_write_failed()

[Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>]

On 03/20/2013 03:23 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 02:08:27PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
>> On 03/19/2013 07:30 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> From: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
>>
>> In xfs_vm_write_failed(), we evaluate the block_offset of pos with PAGE_MASK
>> which is 0xfffff000 as an unsigned long,
> 
> That's the 32 bit value. if it's a 64 bit value, it's
> 0xfffffffffffff000.
> 
>> that is fine on 64-bit platforms no
>> matter the request pos is 32-bit or 64-bit.  However, on 32-bit platforms,
>> the high 32-bit in it will be masked off with (pos & PAGE_MASK) for 64-bit pos
>> request.  As a result, the evaluated block_offset is incorrect which will cause
>> the ASSERT() failed: ASSERT(block_offset + from == pos);
> 
> So I'd just rearrange this slightly:
> 
>> In xfs_vm_write_failed(), we evaluate the block_offset of pos with PAGE_MASK
>> which is an unsigned long. That is fine on 64-bit platforms
>> regardless of whether the request pos is 32-bit or 64-bit.
>> However, on 32-bit platforms, the value is 0xfffff000 and so
>> the high 32 bits in it will be masked off with (pos & PAGE_MASK)
>> for a 64-bit pos As a result, the evaluated block_offset is
>> incorrect which will cause this failure ASSERT(block_offset + from
>> == pos); and potentially pass the wrong block to
>> xfs_vm_kill_delalloc_range().
> 
> ...
>> This patch fix the block_offset evaluation to clear the lower 12 bits as:
>> block_offset = pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT
>> Hence, the ASSERTION should be correct because the from offset in a page is
>> evaluated to have the lower 12 bits only.
> 
> Saying we are clearing the lower 12 bits is not technically correct,
> as there are platforms with different page sizes. What we are
> actually calculating is the offset at the start of the page....
> 
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
>> index 5f707e5..f26a341 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
>> @@ -1494,13 +1494,25 @@ xfs_vm_write_failed(
>>  	loff_t			pos,
>>  	unsigned		len)
>>  {
>> -	loff_t			block_offset = pos & PAGE_MASK;
>> +	loff_t			block_offset;
>>  	loff_t			block_start;
>>  	loff_t			block_end;
>>  	loff_t			from = pos & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1);
>>  	loff_t			to = from + len;
>>  	struct buffer_head	*bh, *head;
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The request pos offset might be 32 or 64 bit, this is all fine
>> +	 * on 64-bit platform.  However, for 64-bit pos request on 32-bit
>> +	 * platform, the high 32-bit will be masked off if we evaluate the
>> +	 * block_offset via (pos & PAGE_MASK) because the PAGE_MASK is
>> +	 * 0xfffff000 as an unsigned long, hence the result is incorrect
>> +	 * which could cause the following ASSERT failed in most cases.
>> +	 * In order to avoid this, we can evaluate the block_offset with
>> +	 * the lower 12-bit masked out and the ASSERT should be correct.
> 
> Same here:
> 
> 	* In order to avoid this, we can evaluate the block_offset
> 	* of the start of the page by using shifts rather than masks
> 	* the mismatch problem.
>> +	 */
>> +	block_offset = (pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
>> +
>>  	ASSERT(block_offset + from == pos);
>>  
>>  	head = page_buffers(page);
> 
> As for the code, it looks fine. Hence with the comments/commit
> fixups, you can add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>

Thanks Dave for correcting me with detailed comments, the revised patch was shown as following.

Regards,
-Jeff


In xfs_vm_write_failed(), we evaluate the block_offset of pos with PAGE_MASK
which is an unsigned long.  That is fine on 64-bit platforms regardless of
whether the request pos is 32-bit or 64-bit.  However, on 32-bit platforms
the value is 0xfffff000 and so the high 32 bits in it will be masked off with
(pos & PAGE_MASK) for a 64-bit pos.  As a result, the evaluated block_offset is
incorrect which will cause this failure ASSERT(block_offset + from == pos); and
potentially pass the wrong block to xfs_vm_kill_delalloc_range().

In this case, we can get the following kernel Panic if the CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG is enabled:

[   68.700573] XFS: Assertion failed: block_offset + from == pos, file: fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c, line: 1504
[   68.700656] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[   68.700692] kernel BUG at fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:100!
[   68.700742] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
........
[   68.701678] Pid: 4057, comm: mkfs.xfs Tainted: G           O 3.9.0-rc2 #1
[   68.701722] EIP: 0060:[<f94a7e8b>] EFLAGS: 00010282 CPU: 0
[   68.701783] EIP is at assfail+0x2b/0x30 [xfs]
[   68.701819] EAX: 00000056 EBX: f6ef28a0 ECX: 00000007 EDX: f57d22a4
[   68.701852] ESI: 1c2fb000 EDI: 00000000 EBP: ea6b5d30 ESP: ea6b5d1c
[   68.701895]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 00e0 SS: 0068
[   68.701934] CR0: 8005003b CR2: 094f3ff4 CR3: 2bcb4000 CR4: 000006f0
[   68.701970] DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
[   68.702011] DR6: ffff0ff0 DR7: 00000400
[   68.702046] Process mkfs.xfs (pid: 4057, ti=ea6b4000 task=ea5799e0 task.ti=ea6b4000)
[   68.702086] Stack:
[   68.702124]  00000000 f9525c48 f951fa80 f951f96b 000005e4 ea6b5d7c f9494b34 c19b0ea2
[   68.702445]  00000066 f3d6c620 c19b0ea2 00000000 e9a91458 00001000 00000000 00000000
[   68.702868]  00000000 c15c7e89 00000000 1c2fb000 00000000 00000000 1c2fb000 00000080
[   68.703192] Call Trace:
[   68.703248]  [<f9494b34>] xfs_vm_write_failed+0x74/0x1b0 [xfs]
[   68.703441]  [<c15c7e89>] ? printk+0x4d/0x4f
[   68.703496]  [<f9494d7d>] xfs_vm_write_begin+0x10d/0x170 [xfs]
[   68.703535]  [<c110a34c>] generic_file_buffered_write+0xdc/0x210
[   68.703583]  [<f949b669>] xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0xf9/0x190 [xfs]
[   68.703629]  [<f949b7f3>] xfs_file_aio_write+0xf3/0x160 [xfs]
[   68.703668]  [<c115e504>] do_sync_write+0x94/0xd0
[   68.703716]  [<c115ed1f>] vfs_write+0x8f/0x160
[   68.703753]  [<c115e470>] ? wait_on_retry_sync_kiocb+0x50/0x50
[   68.703794]  [<c115f017>] sys_write+0x47/0x80
[   68.703830]  [<c15d860d>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x28
.............
[   68.704203] EIP: [<f94a7e8b>] assfail+0x2b/0x30 [xfs] SS:ESP 0068:ea6b5d1c
[   68.706615] ---[ end trace cdd9af4f4ecab42f ]---
[   68.706687] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception

In order to avoid this, we can evaluate the block_offset of the start of the page
by using shifts rather than masks the mismatch problem.

Thanks Dave Chinner for help finding and fixing this bug.

Reported-by: Michael L. Semon <mlsemon35@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Signed-off-by: Jie Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c |   15 ++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
index 5f707e5..7b5d6b1 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
@@ -1494,13 +1494,26 @@ xfs_vm_write_failed(
 	loff_t			pos,
 	unsigned		len)
 {
-	loff_t			block_offset = pos & PAGE_MASK;
+	loff_t			block_offset;
 	loff_t			block_start;
 	loff_t			block_end;
 	loff_t			from = pos & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1);
 	loff_t			to = from + len;
 	struct buffer_head	*bh, *head;
 
+	/*
+	 * The request pos offset might be 32 or 64 bit, this is all fine
+	 * on 64-bit platform.  However, for 64-bit pos request on 32-bit
+	 * platform, the high 32-bit will be masked off if we evaluate the
+	 * block_offset via (pos & PAGE_MASK) because the PAGE_MASK is
+	 * 0xfffff000 as an unsigned long, hence the result is incorrect
+	 * which could cause the following ASSERT failed in most cases.
+	 * In order to avoid this, we can evaluate the block_offset of the
+	 * start of the page by using shifts rather than masks the mismatch
+	 * problem.
+	 */
+	block_offset = (pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
+
 	ASSERT(block_offset + from == pos);
 
 	head = page_buffers(page);
-- 
1.7.9.5

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs