From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
andi@firstfloor.org, Wuqixuan <wuqixuan@huawei.com>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] vfs: always protect diretory file->fpos with inode mutex
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:59:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130219125913.GD21945@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51236652.1050608@huawei.com>
On Tue 19-02-13 19:47:30, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/2/19 17:19, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 19-02-13 09:22:40, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> There's a long long-standing bug...As long as I don't know when it dates
> >> from.
> >>
> >> I've written and attached a simple program to reproduce this bug, and it can
> >> immediately trigger the bug in my box. It uses two threads, one keeps calling
> >> read(), and the other calling readdir(), both on the same directory fd.
> > So the fact that read() or even write() to fd opened O_RDONLY has *any*
> > effect on f_pos looks really unexpected to me. I think we really should
> > have there:
> > if (ret >= 0)
> > file_pos_write(...);
>
> I thought about this. The problem is then we have to check every fop->write()
> to see if any of them can return -errno with file->f_pos changed and fix them,
> though it's do-able.
But returning error and advancing f_pos would be a bug - specification
says write() returns the number of bytes written or -1 and f_pos should be
advanced by the number of bytes written.
> > That would solve problems with read() and write() on directories for
> > pretty much every filesystem since the first usually returns -EISDIR and
> > the second -EBADF.
>
> Yeah, seems ceph is the only filesystem that allows read() on directories.
>
> >> When I ran it on ext3 (can be replaced with ext2/ext4) which has _dir_index_
> >> feature disabled, I got this:
> >>
> >> EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=993, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
> >> EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=1009, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
> >> EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=993, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
> >> EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=1009, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0
> >> ...
> >>
> >> If we configured errors=remount-ro, the filesystem will become read-only.
> >>
> >> SYSCALL_DEFINE3(read, unsigned int, fd, char __user *, buf, size_t, count)
> >> {
> >> ...
> >> loff_t pos = file_pos_read(file);
> >> ret = vfs_read(file, buf, count, &pos);
> >> file_pos_write(file, pos);
> >> fput_light(file, fput_needed);
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> While readdir() is protected with i_mutex, f_pos can be changed without
> >> any locking in various read()/write() syscalls, which leads to this bug.
> >>
> >> What makes things worse is Andi removed i_mutex from generic_file_llseek,
> >> so you can trigger the same bug by replacing read() with lseek() in the
> >> test program.
> > Yes, and here I'd say it's a filesystem issue. If filesystem needs f_pos
> > changed only under i_mutex, it should use default_llseek() or get the mutex
> > itself. That's what the callback is for. We shouldn't unnecessarily impose
> > the i_mutex restriction on llseek on a directory for every filesystem.
>
> One of my concern is, concurrent lseek() and readdir() doesn't seem to be
> well tested. I'll add a test case in xfstests.
Yes, that might be a useful test to add.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-19 12:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-19 1:22 [RFC][PATCH] vfs: always protect diretory file->fpos with inode mutex Li Zefan
2013-02-19 4:06 ` Miao Xie
2013-02-19 9:19 ` Jan Kara
2013-02-19 11:47 ` Li Zefan
2013-02-19 12:59 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2013-02-20 1:49 ` Li Zefan
2013-02-19 11:48 ` Li Zefan
2013-02-19 12:33 ` Zheng Liu
2013-02-19 12:43 ` Li Zefan
2013-02-23 17:35 ` [RFC] f_pos in readdir() (was Re: [RFC][PATCH] vfs: always protect diretory file->fpos with inode mutex) Al Viro
2013-02-25 6:09 ` Li Zefan
2013-02-25 18:25 ` Zach Brown
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=20130219125913.GD21945@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wuqixuan@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).