From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
ltp@lists.linux.it, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <gabriel@krisman.be>
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] ext4: don't set SB_RDONLY after filesystem errors
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 14:50:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAASaF6yASRgEKfhAVktFit31Yw5e9gwMD0jupchD0gWK9EppTw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxjXE7Tyz39wLUcuSTijy37vgUjYxvGL21E32cxStAgQpQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 2:32 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 1:34 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 30-09-24 12:15:11, Jan Stancek wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 10:12:41PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > When the filesystem is mounted with errors=remount-ro, we were setting
> > > > SB_RDONLY flag to stop all filesystem modifications. We knew this misses
> > > > proper locking (sb->s_umount) and does not go through proper filesystem
> > > > remount procedure but it has been the way this worked since early ext2
> > > > days and it was good enough for catastrophic situation damage
> > > > mitigation. Recently, syzbot has found a way (see link) to trigger
> > > > warnings in filesystem freezing because the code got confused by
> > > > SB_RDONLY changing under its hands. Since these days we set
> > > > EXT4_FLAGS_SHUTDOWN on the superblock which is enough to stop all
> > > > filesystem modifications, modifying SB_RDONLY shouldn't be needed. So
> > > > stop doing that.
> > > >
> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/000000000000b90a8e061e21d12f@google.com
> > > > Reported-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/ext4/super.c | 9 +++++----
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Note that this patch introduces fstests failure with generic/459 test because
> > > > it assumes that either freezing succeeds or 'ro' is among mount options. But
> > > > we fail the freeze with EFSCORRUPTED. This needs fixing in the test but at this
> > > > point I'm not sure how exactly.
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > > index e72145c4ae5a..93c016b186c0 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > > @@ -735,11 +735,12 @@ static void ext4_handle_error(struct super_block *sb, bool force_ro, int error,
> > > >
> > > > ext4_msg(sb, KERN_CRIT, "Remounting filesystem read-only");
> > > > /*
> > > > - * Make sure updated value of ->s_mount_flags will be visible before
> > > > - * ->s_flags update
> > > > + * EXT4_FLAGS_SHUTDOWN was set which stops all filesystem
> > > > + * modifications. We don't set SB_RDONLY because that requires
> > > > + * sb->s_umount semaphore and setting it without proper remount
> > > > + * procedure is confusing code such as freeze_super() leading to
> > > > + * deadlocks and other problems.
> > > > */
> > > > - smp_wmb();
> > > > - sb->s_flags |= SB_RDONLY;
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > shouldn't the SB_RDONLY still be set (in __ext4_remount()) for the case
> > > when user triggers the abort with mount(.., "abort")? Because now we seem
> > > to always hit the condition that returns EROFS to user-space.
> >
> > Thanks for report! I agree returning EROFS from the mount although
> > 'aborting' succeeded is confusing and is mostly an unintended side effect
> > that after aborting the fs further changes to mount state are forbidden but
> > the testcase additionally wants to remount the fs read-only.
>
> Regardless of what is right or wrong to do in ext4, I don't think that the test
> really cares about remount read-only.
> I don't see anything in the test that requires it. Gabriel?
> If I remove MS_RDONLY from the test it works just fine.
>
> Any objection for LTP maintainers to apply this simple test fix?
Does that change work for you on older kernels? On 6.11 I get EROFS:
fanotify22.c:59: TINFO: Mounting /dev/loop0 to
/tmp/LTP_fangb5wuO/test_mnt fstyp=ext4 flags=20
fanotify22.c:59: TBROK: mount(/dev/loop0, test_mnt, ext4, 32,
0x4211ed) failed: EROFS (30)
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify22.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify22.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static struct fanotify_fid_t bad_link_fid;
> static void trigger_fs_abort(void)
> {
> SAFE_MOUNT(tst_device->dev, MOUNT_PATH, tst_device->fs_type,
> - MS_REMOUNT|MS_RDONLY, "abort");
> + MS_REMOUNT, "abort");
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-04 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-05 20:12 [PATCH] ext4: don't set SB_RDONLY after filesystem errors Jan Kara
2024-08-06 10:50 ` Christian Brauner
2024-08-08 16:16 ` Jan Kara
2024-08-27 12:47 ` Theodore Ts'o
2024-09-30 10:15 ` Jan Stancek
2024-09-30 11:34 ` Jan Kara
2024-10-04 12:32 ` [LTP] " Amir Goldstein
2024-10-04 12:50 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2024-10-04 13:28 ` Amir Goldstein
2024-10-04 14:31 ` Jan Kara
2024-10-04 19:33 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2024-10-06 3:38 ` Theodore Ts'o
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=CAASaF6yASRgEKfhAVktFit31Yw5e9gwMD0jupchD0gWK9EppTw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=gabriel@krisman.be \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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).