From: Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@gmail.com>
To: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: jaegeuk@kernel.org,
syzbot+ebea2790904673d7c618@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: Do not check the FI_DIRTY_INODE flag when umounting a ro fs.
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 21:19:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <db89aa34ab0068581ecb103b3aea0d484d8534bc.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f1e5069-7ff0-4d5f-8a3a-3806c8d21487@kernel.org>
On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 16:13 +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2024/8/29 0:54, Julian Sun wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > Recently syzbot reported a bug as following:
> >
> > kernel BUG at fs/f2fs/inode.c:896!
> > CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 5217 Comm: syz-executor605 Not tainted 6.11.0-
> > rc4-syzkaller-00033-g872cf28b8df9 #0
> > RIP: 0010:f2fs_evict_inode+0x1598/0x15c0 fs/f2fs/inode.c:896
> > Call Trace:
> > <TASK>
> > evict+0x532/0x950 fs/inode.c:704
> > dispose_list fs/inode.c:747 [inline]
> > evict_inodes+0x5f9/0x690 fs/inode.c:797
> > generic_shutdown_super+0x9d/0x2d0 fs/super.c:627
> > kill_block_super+0x44/0x90 fs/super.c:1696
> > kill_f2fs_super+0x344/0x690 fs/f2fs/super.c:4898
> > deactivate_locked_super+0xc4/0x130 fs/super.c:473
> > cleanup_mnt+0x41f/0x4b0 fs/namespace.c:1373
> > task_work_run+0x24f/0x310 kernel/task_work.c:228
> > ptrace_notify+0x2d2/0x380 kernel/signal.c:2402
> > ptrace_report_syscall include/linux/ptrace.h:415 [inline]
> > ptrace_report_syscall_exit include/linux/ptrace.h:477 [inline]
> > syscall_exit_work+0xc6/0x190 kernel/entry/common.c:173
> > syscall_exit_to_user_mode_prepare kernel/entry/common.c:200
> > [inline]
> > __syscall_exit_to_user_mode_work kernel/entry/common.c:205
> > [inline]
> > syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x279/0x370 kernel/entry/common.c:218
> > do_syscall_64+0x100/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:89
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
> >
> > The syzbot constructed the following scenario: concurrently
> > creating directories and setting the file system to read-only.
> > In this case, while f2fs was making dir, the filesystem switched to
> > readonly, and when it tried to clear the dirty flag, it triggered
> > this
> > code path: f2fs_mkdir()-> f2fs_sync_fs()->f2fs_write_checkpoint()
> > ->f2fs_readonly(). This resulted FI_DIRTY_INODE flag not being
> > cleared,
> > which eventually led to a bug being triggered during the
> > FI_DIRTY_INODE
> > check in f2fs_evict_inode().
> >
> > In this case, we cannot do anything further, so if filesystem is
> > readonly,
> > do not trigger the BUG. Instead, clean up resources to the best of
> > our
> > ability to prevent triggering subsequent resource leak checks.
> >
> > If there is anything important I'm missing, please let me know,
> > thanks.
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+ebea2790904673d7c618@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > Closes:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ebea2790904673d7c618
> > Fixes: ca7d802a7d8e ("f2fs: detect dirty inode in evict_inode")
> > CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/inode.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > index aef57172014f..ebf825dba0a5 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > @@ -892,7 +892,8 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> > atomic_read(&fi->i_compr_blocks));
> >
> > if (likely(!f2fs_cp_error(sbi) &&
> > - !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi,
> > SBI_CP_DISABLED)))
> > + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi,
> > SBI_CP_DISABLED)) &&
> > + !f2fs_readonly(sbi->sb))
>
> Is it fine to drop this dirty inode? Since once it remounts f2fs as
> rw one,
> previous updates on such inode may be lost? Or am I missing
> something?
Hi, Chao.
I believe the issue you pointed out goes beyond the scope of the
problem reported by syzbot, as I have seen this issue in some existing
code as well, such as in the handling of read-only file systems in
f2fs_mark_inode_dirty_sync(), f2fs_write_checkpoint(),
f2fs_do_sync_file(), etc.
If you do believe the problem needs to be fixed, we can discuss it
further, but it should be addressed in a separate patch.
If there is anything important I'm missing, please let me know, thanks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> > f2fs_bug_on(sbi, is_inode_flag_set(inode,
> > FI_DIRTY_INODE));
> > else
> > f2fs_inode_synced(inode);
>
Thanks,
--
Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@gmail.com>
To: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: jaegeuk@kernel.org,
syzbot+ebea2790904673d7c618@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: Do not check the FI_DIRTY_INODE flag when umounting a ro fs.
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 21:19:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <db89aa34ab0068581ecb103b3aea0d484d8534bc.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f1e5069-7ff0-4d5f-8a3a-3806c8d21487@kernel.org>
On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 16:13 +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2024/8/29 0:54, Julian Sun wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > Recently syzbot reported a bug as following:
> >
> > kernel BUG at fs/f2fs/inode.c:896!
> > CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 5217 Comm: syz-executor605 Not tainted 6.11.0-
> > rc4-syzkaller-00033-g872cf28b8df9 #0
> > RIP: 0010:f2fs_evict_inode+0x1598/0x15c0 fs/f2fs/inode.c:896
> > Call Trace:
> > <TASK>
> > evict+0x532/0x950 fs/inode.c:704
> > dispose_list fs/inode.c:747 [inline]
> > evict_inodes+0x5f9/0x690 fs/inode.c:797
> > generic_shutdown_super+0x9d/0x2d0 fs/super.c:627
> > kill_block_super+0x44/0x90 fs/super.c:1696
> > kill_f2fs_super+0x344/0x690 fs/f2fs/super.c:4898
> > deactivate_locked_super+0xc4/0x130 fs/super.c:473
> > cleanup_mnt+0x41f/0x4b0 fs/namespace.c:1373
> > task_work_run+0x24f/0x310 kernel/task_work.c:228
> > ptrace_notify+0x2d2/0x380 kernel/signal.c:2402
> > ptrace_report_syscall include/linux/ptrace.h:415 [inline]
> > ptrace_report_syscall_exit include/linux/ptrace.h:477 [inline]
> > syscall_exit_work+0xc6/0x190 kernel/entry/common.c:173
> > syscall_exit_to_user_mode_prepare kernel/entry/common.c:200
> > [inline]
> > __syscall_exit_to_user_mode_work kernel/entry/common.c:205
> > [inline]
> > syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x279/0x370 kernel/entry/common.c:218
> > do_syscall_64+0x100/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:89
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
> >
> > The syzbot constructed the following scenario: concurrently
> > creating directories and setting the file system to read-only.
> > In this case, while f2fs was making dir, the filesystem switched to
> > readonly, and when it tried to clear the dirty flag, it triggered
> > this
> > code path: f2fs_mkdir()-> f2fs_sync_fs()->f2fs_write_checkpoint()
> > ->f2fs_readonly(). This resulted FI_DIRTY_INODE flag not being
> > cleared,
> > which eventually led to a bug being triggered during the
> > FI_DIRTY_INODE
> > check in f2fs_evict_inode().
> >
> > In this case, we cannot do anything further, so if filesystem is
> > readonly,
> > do not trigger the BUG. Instead, clean up resources to the best of
> > our
> > ability to prevent triggering subsequent resource leak checks.
> >
> > If there is anything important I'm missing, please let me know,
> > thanks.
> >
> > Reported-by: syzbot+ebea2790904673d7c618@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > Closes:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ebea2790904673d7c618
> > Fixes: ca7d802a7d8e ("f2fs: detect dirty inode in evict_inode")
> > CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/inode.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > index aef57172014f..ebf825dba0a5 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > @@ -892,7 +892,8 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> > atomic_read(&fi->i_compr_blocks));
> >
> > if (likely(!f2fs_cp_error(sbi) &&
> > - !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi,
> > SBI_CP_DISABLED)))
> > + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi,
> > SBI_CP_DISABLED)) &&
> > + !f2fs_readonly(sbi->sb))
>
> Is it fine to drop this dirty inode? Since once it remounts f2fs as
> rw one,
> previous updates on such inode may be lost? Or am I missing
> something?
Hi, Chao.
I believe the issue you pointed out goes beyond the scope of the
problem reported by syzbot, as I have seen this issue in some existing
code as well, such as in the handling of read-only file systems in
f2fs_mark_inode_dirty_sync(), f2fs_write_checkpoint(),
f2fs_do_sync_file(), etc.
If you do believe the problem needs to be fixed, we can discuss it
further, but it should be addressed in a separate patch.
If there is anything important I'm missing, please let me know, thanks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> > f2fs_bug_on(sbi, is_inode_flag_set(inode,
> > FI_DIRTY_INODE));
> > else
> > f2fs_inode_synced(inode);
>
Thanks,
--
Julian Sun <sunjunchao2870@gmail.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-03 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-28 16:54 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: Do not check the FI_DIRTY_INODE flag when umounting a ro fs Julian Sun
2024-08-28 16:54 ` Julian Sun
2024-09-02 8:13 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel
2024-09-02 8:13 ` Chao Yu
2024-09-02 13:01 ` [f2fs-dev] " Julian Sun
2024-09-02 13:01 ` Julian Sun
2024-09-03 14:20 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel
2024-09-03 14:20 ` Chao Yu
2024-09-03 21:20 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim via Linux-f2fs-devel
2024-09-03 21:20 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2024-09-04 15:06 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel
2024-09-04 15:06 ` Chao Yu
2024-09-03 13:19 ` Julian Sun [this message]
2024-09-03 13:19 ` Julian Sun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=db89aa34ab0068581ecb103b3aea0d484d8534bc.camel@gmail.com \
--to=sunjunchao2870@gmail.com \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=syzbot+ebea2790904673d7c618@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.