Re: [PATCH 2/6] xfs: verify extent size hint is valid in inode verifier

["Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>]

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:27:42AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/20/18 10:06 AM, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 09:43:46AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:39:53PM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> On 6/4/18 11:24 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> There are rules for vald extent size hints. We enforce them when
> >>>> applications set them, but fuzzers violate those rules and that
> >>>> screws us over.
> >>>>
> >>>> This results in alignment assertion failures when setting up
> >>>> allocations such as this in direct IO:
> >>>>
> >>>> XFS: Assertion failed: ap->length, file: fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c, line: 3432
> >>>> ....
> >>>> Call Trace:
> >>>>  xfs_bmap_btalloc+0x415/0x910
> >>>>  xfs_bmapi_write+0x71c/0x12e0
> >>>>  xfs_iomap_write_direct+0x2a9/0x420
> >>>>  xfs_file_iomap_begin+0x4dc/0xa70
> >>>>  iomap_apply+0x43/0x100
> >>>>  iomap_file_buffered_write+0x62/0x90
> >>>>  xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0xba/0x300
> >>>>  __vfs_write+0xd5/0x150
> >>>>  vfs_write+0xb6/0x180
> >>>>  ksys_write+0x45/0xa0
> >>>>  do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x180
> >>>>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> >>>>
> >>>> And from xfs_db:
> >>>>
> >>>> core.extsize = 10380288
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is not an integer multiple of the block size, and so violates
> >>>> Rule #7 for setting extent size hints. Validate extent size hint
> >>>> rules in the inode verifier to catch this.
> >>>
> >>> So, I think that if I do:
> >>>
> >>> # mkfs.xfs -f -m crc=0 $TEST_DEV
> >>> # ./check xfs/229
> >>> # ./check xfs/229
> >>>
> >>> I trip the verifier, because I end up with freed inodes on disk with an
> >>> extent size hints but zeroed flags.  
> >>>
> >>> xfs_ifree sets di_flags = 0 but doesn't clear di_extsize; xfs_inode_validate_extsize
> >>> says if extsize !=0 and the hint flag is set, it fails
> >>>
> >>> Anyone else see this?
> >>
> >> Yeah, I think I just hit this on the TEST_DEV in xfs/242.
> >>
> >> git blame says I lifted the code from the scrub code, and I probably
> >> wrote the code having read the ioctl code (which clears the extsize
> >> field if the iflag isn't set).
> >>
> >>> (crc=0 needed because that causes us to actually reread the inode chunks
> >>> in xfs_iread vs. /* shortcut IO on inode allocation if possible */
> >>
> >> Hmmm, so a v5 fs mounted with ikeep will also read an inode chunk when
> >> creating an inode.  It looks like we do that (instead of zeroing the
> >> incore inode and setting a random i_generation) to preserve the existing
> >> generation number?
> >>
> >> In any case, it's pretty clear that kernels have been writing out freed
> >> inode cores with di_mode == 0, di_flags == 0, and di_extsize == (some
> >> number) so we clearly can't have that in the verifier.  It looks like we
> >> only examine di_extsize if either EXTSZ flag are set, so it's not
> >> causing incorrect behavior.  Maybe it can be a preening fix in
> >> scrub/repair.
> >>
> > 
> > I just stumbled on this problem with xfs/229 that Eric reported. I'm
> > confused by the comment above regarding this not causing incorrect
> > behavior.
> 
> I think Darrick meant that having a nonzero extent size hint on disk
> won't cause incorrect behavior because "we only examine di_extsize if
> either EXTSZ flag are set"

Yeah, he probably did. :)

I think Brian's suggestion of

if (i_mode != 0 && !hint && extsize != 0)
	barf_error();

sounds reasonable (having not tested that at all).

--D

> -Eric