On 2022/11/16 19:49, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 16-11-22 15:28:01, Baokun Li wrote:
In commit 9a8c5b0d0615 ("ext4: update the backup superblock's at the end
of the online resize"), it is assumed that update_backups() only updates
backup superblocks, so each b_data is treated as a backupsuper block to
update its s_block_group_nr and s_checksum. However, update_backups()
also updates the backup group descriptors, which causes the backup group
descriptors to be corrupted.
The above commit fixes the problem of invalid checksum of the backup
superblock. The root cause of this problem is that the checksum of
ext4_update_super() is not set correctly. This problem has been fixed
in the previous patch ("ext4: fix bad checksum after online resize").
Therefore, roll back some modifications in the above commit.
Fixes: 9a8c5b0d0615 ("ext4: update the backup superblock's at the end of the online resize")
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
So I agree commit 9a8c5b0d0615 is broken and does corrupt group
descriptors. However I don't see how PATCH 1/3 in this series would fix all
the problems commit 9a8c5b0d0615 is trying to fix. In particular checksums
on backup superblocks will not be properly set by the resize code AFAICT.
Honza
I didn't find these two issues to be the same until I researched the
problem in
PATCH 3/3 and found that commit 9a8c5b0d0615 introduced a similar problem.
Then, it is found that the backup superblock is directly copied from the
primary
superblock. If the backup superblock is faulty, the primary superblock
must be
faulty. In this case, patch 1 that fixes the primary superblock problem
is thought
of. So by rolling back commit 9a8c5b0d0615 to verify, I found that patch
1 did
fix the problem.
Only ext4_flex_group_add() and ext4_group_extend_no_check() call
update_backups() to update the backup superblock. Both of these functions
correctly set the checksum of the primary superblock. The backup superblocks
that are copied from them are also correct.
In ext4_flex_group_add(), we only update the backup superblock if there
are no
previous errors, indicating that we must have updated the checksum in
ext4_update_super() before executing update_backups(). The previous problem
was that after we updated the checksum in ext4_update_super(), we modified
s_overhead_clusters, so the checksums for both the primary and backup
superblocks
were incorrect. This problem has been fixed in PATCH 1/3, so checksum is set
correctly in ext4_flex_group_add().
The same is true in ext4_group_extend_no_check(), we only update the backup
superblock if there are no errors, and we execute ext4_superblock_csum_set()
to update the checksum before updating the backup superblock. Therefore,
checksum is correctly set in ext4_group_extend_no_check().
I think we only need to ensure that the checksum is set correctly when
the buffer
lock of sbi->s_sbh is unlocked. Therefore, the checksum should be
correct before
update_backups() holds the buffer lock. Also, in update_backups() we
copy the
entire superblock completely, and the checksum is unchanged, so we don't
need
to reset it.
---
fs/ext4/resize.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/resize.c b/fs/ext4/resize.c
index cb99b410c9fa..32fbfc173571 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/resize.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/resize.c
@@ -1158,7 +1158,6 @@ static void update_backups(struct super_block *sb, sector_t blk_off, char *data,
while (group < sbi->s_groups_count) {
struct buffer_head *bh;
ext4_fsblk_t backup_block;
- struct ext4_super_block *es;
/* Out of journal space, and can't get more - abort - so sad */
err = ext4_resize_ensure_credits_batch(handle, 1);
@@ -1187,10 +1186,6 @@ static void update_backups(struct super_block *sb, sector_t blk_off, char *data,
memcpy(bh->b_data, data, size);
if (rest)
memset(bh->b_data + size, 0, rest);
- es = (struct ext4_super_block *) bh->b_data;
- es->s_block_group_nr = cpu_to_le16(group);
- if (ext4_has_metadata_csum(sb))
- es->s_checksum = ext4_superblock_csum(sb, es);
set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
unlock_buffer(bh);
err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, bh);
--
2.31.1
Thank you for your review!
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
