From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8167F52 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:20:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B942A8F8050 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-f54.google.com (mail-yh0-f54.google.com [209.85.213.54]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id HdSvHKhyV4FkQnmw (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f54.google.com with SMTP id i21so598759yha.27 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 14:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5169CC34.9080902@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:20:52 -0400 From: "Michael L. Semon" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix s_max_bytes to MAX_LFS_FILESIZE if needed References: <5167E160.3020800@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <5167E160.3020800@oracle.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Jeff Liu Cc: "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Update: My tests on my original hardware go exactly as they did in my Pentium 4 test. xfstests shared/[0-9][0-9][0-9] and xfs/003 through xfs/136 were run against it. No problems. Good job. I'm keeping the patch. My final version of the bug summary goes like this: On a 32-bit x86 PC, with a Linux kernel that has CONFIG_LBDAF=y... xfstests generic/308, by writing to a file at an address just before 2**32, causes the following conditions on an XFS filesystem: 1) CPU usage becomes very high, 2) The xfs_io process cannot be killed, 3) The best way to shut down the PC is through use of the magic SysRq keys. 4) Afterwards, attempts to mount the filesystem result in a soft oops. 5) After an `xfs_repair -L` on the filesystem, all is OK, other than for what was lost by zeroing the log. J. Liu wrote a patch that solves this problem, but he found the answers with CONFIG_LBDAF=n, which is a condition for which xfstests generic/308 passes on the two test PCs used. Tests were conducted on a Pentium III (kernel 3.9-rc4 with numerous SGI patches) and on a Pentium 4 (kernel 3.9-rc6 with numerous SGI patches). Could you verify these things by memory (no need to retest)? a) With CONFIG_LBDAF=y, generic/308 caused filesystem corruption, and b) With CONFIG_LBDAF=n, generic/308 passed the test. c) Having CONFIG_LBDAF=n helped you to find the answers and write this fine patch. Otherwise, the conclusion is "I don't know how you got there, but you got there. Good job! and thanks for finding the root cause of the problem." Thanks again! Michael On 04/12/2013 06:26 AM, Jeff Liu wrote: > From: Jie Liu > > On 32-bit machine, the s_maxbytes is larger than the MAX_LFS_FILESIZE limits if CONFIG_LBDAF is > not enabled. Hence it's possible to create a huge file via buffered-IO write with a given offset > beyond this limitation. e.g. > > # block_size=4096 > # offset=$(((2**32 - 1) * $block_size)) > # xfs_io -f -c "pwrite $offset $block_size" /storage/test_file > > In this case, xfs_io will hang at the page writeback stage soon since the given offset would > cause an overflow at xfs_vm_writepage(): > > end_index = offset >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; > last_index = (offset - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; > if (page->index >= end_index) { > unsigned offset_into_page = offset & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1); > > /* > * Just skip the page if it is fully outside i_size, e.g. due > * to a truncate operation that is in progress. > */ > if (page->index >= end_index + 1 || offset_into_page == 0) { > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > unlock_page(page); > return 0; > } > end_index is unsigned long so that the max value is '2^32-1 = 4294967295', and it > would be evaluated to the max value with the given offset(when writing the page offset > up to s_max_bytes) for above test case. As a result, (page->index >= end_index + 1) is > ok as (end_index + 1) is overflowed to ZERO. > > Actually, create a file as above on 32-bit machine should be failed with EFBIG error returned > because there has strict check up at generic_write_checks() against the given offset with a > *correct* s_max_bytes. > > This patch fix the s_max_bytes to MAX_LFS_FILESIZE if the pre-calculated value is greater > than it. > > Reported-by: Michael L. Semon > Signed-off-by: Jie Liu > > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c > index ea341ce..0644d61 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c > @@ -585,6 +585,7 @@ xfs_max_file_offset( > { > unsigned int pagefactor = 1; > unsigned int bitshift = BITS_PER_LONG - 1; > + __uint64_t offset; > > /* Figure out maximum filesize, on Linux this can depend on > * the filesystem blocksize (on 32 bit platforms). > @@ -610,7 +611,10 @@ xfs_max_file_offset( > # endif > #endif > > - return (((__uint64_t)pagefactor) << bitshift) - 1; > + offset = (((__uint64_t)pagefactor) << bitshift) - 1; > + > + /* Check against VM & VFS exposed limits */ > + return (offset > MAX_LFS_FILESIZE) ? MAX_LFS_FILESIZE : offset; > } > > xfs_agnumber_t > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs