Re: [PATCH RFC] xfs: fix buffer check for primary sb in userspace libxfs

Darrick J. Wong
2017-07-18T18:10:46Z

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:13:37AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> Hi all,
>
> This patch is actually targeted at userspace. The previous change in commit
> f3d7ebde ("xfs: fix superblock inprogress check") to use ->b_maps technically
> breaks the logic in userspace in a similar way to the original problem because
> userspace has no concept of uncached buffers. ->b_maps is NULL in userspace
> unless the buffer is truly discontiguous.
>
> This would normally result in a segfault but this appears to be hidden
> by gcc optimization as -O2 is enabled by default and the
> check_inprogress param to xfs_mount_validate_sb() is unused in
> userspace. Therefore, the segfault is only reproducible when
> optimization is disabled (which is a useful configuration for
> debugging).
>
> There are obviously different ways to fix this. I'm floating this (untested)
> rfc as a kernel patch (do we ever sync libxfs from xfsprogs -> kernel?) with
> the objective of keeping the libxfs code the same between the kernel and
> userspace. We could alternatively create a custom helper/macro with the
> appropriate check in each place. Thoughts?

Eww, macros. :)

> Brian
>
> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> index 9b5aae2..ec2fd03 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> @@ -583,6 +583,7 @@ xfs_sb_verify(
> {
> struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> struct xfs_sb sb;
> + bool primary_sb;
>
> /*
> * Use call variant which doesn't convert quota flags from disk
> @@ -592,11 +593,14 @@ xfs_sb_verify(
>
> /*
> * Only check the in progress field for the primary superblock as
> - * mkfs.xfs doesn't clear it from secondary superblocks.
> + * mkfs.xfs doesn't clear it from secondary superblocks. Note that
> + * userspace libxfs does not have uncached buffers and so b_maps is not
> + * used for the sb buffer.
> */
> - return xfs_mount_validate_sb(mp, &sb,
> - bp->b_maps[0].bm_bn == XFS_SB_DADDR,
> - check_version);

/me wonders if it'd be appropriate to:

ASSERT(bp->b_maps != NULL || bp->b_bn != XFS_BUF_DADDR_NULL);

here to confirm that uncached buffers are working the way we think
they're supposed to.

Otherwise it looks ok.

--D

> + primary_sb = (bp->b_bn == XFS_BUF_DADDR_NULL &&
> + bp->b_maps[0].bm_bn == XFS_SB_DADDR) ||
> + bp->b_bn == XFS_SB_DADDR;
> + return xfs_mount_validate_sb(mp, &sb, primary_sb, check_version);
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.9.4