Re: [PATCH V8 15/19] xfs: Directory's data fork extent counter can never overflow

Darrick J. Wong
2022-03-30T03:43:41Z

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 05:23:40PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:52:04AM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
> > On 25 Mar 2022 at 03:44, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:47:46AM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
> > >> The maximum file size that can be represented by the data fork extent counter
> > >> in the worst case occurs when all extents are 1 block in length and each block
> > >> is 1KB in size.
> > >>
> > >> With XFS_MAX_EXTCNT_DATA_FORK_SMALL representing maximum extent count and with
> > >> 1KB sized blocks, a file can reach upto,
> > >> (2^31) * 1KB = 2TB
> > >>
> > >> This is much larger than the theoretical maximum size of a directory
> > >> i.e. 32GB * 3 = 96GB.
> > >>
> > >> Since a directory's inode can never overflow its data fork extent counter,
> > >> this commit replaces checking the return value of
> > >> xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() with calls to ASSERT(error == 0).
> > >
> > > I'd really prefer that we don't add noise like this to a bunch of
> > > call sites. If directories can't overflow the extent count in
> > > normal operation, then why are we even calling
> > > xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() in these paths? i.e. an overflow would
> > > be a sign of an inode corruption, and we should have flagged that
> > > long before we do an operation that might overflow the extent count.
> > >
> > > So, really, I think you should document the directory size
> > > constraints at the site where we define all the large extent count
> > > values in xfs_format.h, remove the xfs_iext_count_may_overflow()
> > > checks from the directory code and replace them with a simple inode
> > > verifier check that we haven't got more than 100GB worth of
> > > individual extents in the data fork for directory inodes....
> >
> > I don't think that we could trivially verify if the extents in a directory's
> > data fork add up to more than 96GB.
>
> dip->di_nextents tells us how many extents there are in the data
> fork, we know what the block size of the filesystem is, so it should
> be pretty easy to calculate a maximum extent count for 96GB of
> space. i.e. absolute maximum valid dir data fork extent count
> is (96GB / blocksize).
>
> >
> > xfs_dinode->di_size tracks the size of XFS_DIR2_DATA_SPACE. This also includes
> > holes that could be created by freeing directory entries in a single directory
> > block. Also, there is no easy method to determine the space occupied by
> > XFS_DIR2_LEAF_SPACE and XFS_DIR2_FREE_SPACE segments of a directory.
>
> Sure there is. We do this sort of calc for things like transaction
> reservations via definitions like XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH. That tells us

Hmmm. Seeing as I just replaced XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS with dynamic limits
set for each filesytem, is XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH even appropriate for
modern filesystems? We're about to start allowing far more extended
attributes in the form of parent pointers, so we should be careful about
this.

For a directory, there can be at most 32GB of directory entries, so the
maximum number of directory entries is...

32GB / (directory block size) * (max entries per dir block)

The dabtree stores (u32 hash, u32 offset) records, so I guess it
wouldn't be so hard to compute the number of blocks needed for each node
level until we only need one block, and that's our real
XFS_DA_NODE_MAXEPTH.

But then the second question is: what's the maximum height of a dabtree
that indexes an xattr structure? I don't think there's any maximum
limit within XFS on the number of attrs you can set on a file, is there?
At least until you hit the iext_max_count check. I think the VFS
institutes its own limit of 64k for the llistxattr buffer, but that's
about all I can think of.

I suppose right now the xattr structure can't grow larger than 2^(16+21)
blocks in size, which is 2^49 bytes, but that's a mix of attr leaves and
dabtree blocks, unlike directories, right?

> immediately how many blocks can be in the XFS_DIR2_LEAF_SPACE
> segement....
>
> We also know the maximum number of individual directory blocks in
> the 32GB segment (fixed at 32GB / dir block size), so the free space
> array is also a fixed size at (32GB / dir block size / free space
> entries per block).
>
> It's easy to just use (96GB / block size) and that will catch most
> corruptions with no risk of a false positive detection, but we could
> quite easily refine this to something like:
>
> data (32GB +
> leaf btree blocks(XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) +
> freesp (32GB / free space records per block))
> frags / filesystem block size

I think we ought to do a more careful study of XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH, but
it could become more involved than we think. In the interest of keeping
this series moving, can we start with a new verifier check that
(di_nextents < that formula from above) and then refine that based on
whatever improvements we may or may not come up with for
XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH?

>
> > May be the following can be added to xfs_dinode_verify(),
> >
> > if (S_ISDIR(mode) && ((xfs_dinode->di_size + 2 * 32GB) > 96GB))
> > return __this_address
>
> That doesn't validate that the on disk or in-memory di_nextents
> value is withing the known valid range or not. We can do that
> directly (as per above), so we shouldn't need a hueristic like this.

Indeed, inode size is not a good proxy variable for extent count.

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com