On 2024/3/14 20:50, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 14-03-24 20:37:38, Baokun Li wrote:
On 2024/3/14 20:00, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 14-03-24 19:24:56, Baokun Li wrote:
Hi Jan,
On 2024/3/14 18:30, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 27-02-24 17:11:43, Baokun Li wrote:
At 4k block size, the length of the s_mb_avg_fragment_size list is 14,
but an oversized s_mb_group_prealloc is set, causing slab-out-of-bounds
to be triggered by an attempt to access an element at index 29.
Add a new attr_id attr_clusters_in_group with values in the range
[0, sbi->s_clusters_per_group] and declare mb_group_prealloc as
that type to fix the issue. In addition avoid returning an order
from mb_avg_fragment_size_order() greater than MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb)
and reduce some useless loops.
Fixes: 7e170922f06b ("ext4: Add allocation criteria 1.5 (CR1_5)")
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good. Just one nit below. Otherwise feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 6 ++++++
fs/ext4/sysfs.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index 85a91a61b761..7ad089df2408 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -831,6 +831,8 @@ static int mb_avg_fragment_size_order(struct super_block *sb, ext4_grpblk_t len)
return 0;
if (order == MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb))
order--;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order > MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb)))
+ order = MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb) - 1;
return order;
}
@@ -1057,6 +1059,10 @@ static void ext4_mb_choose_next_group_best_avail(struct ext4_allocation_context
ac->ac_flags |= EXT4_MB_CR_BEST_AVAIL_LEN_OPTIMIZED;
return;
}
+
+ /* Skip some unnecessary loops. */
+ if (unlikely(i > MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb)))
+ i = MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb);
How can this possibly trigger now? MB_NUM_ORDERS is sb->s_blocksize_bits +
2. 'i' is starting at fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) and ac_g_ex.fe_len shouldn't
be larger than clusters per group, hence fls() should be less than
sb->s_blocksize_bits? Am I missing something? And if yes, we should rather
make sure 'order' is never absurdly big?
I suspect this code is defensive upto a point of being confusing :)
Honza
Yes, this is indeed defensive code! Only walk into this branch when
WARN_ON_ONCE(order > MB_NUM_ORDERS(sb)) is triggered.
As previously mentioned by ojaswin in the following link:
"The reason for this is that otherwise when order is large eg 29,
we would unnecessarily loop from i=29 to i=13 while always
looking at the same avg_fragment_list[13]."
Link：https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZdQ7FEA7KC4eAMpg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Thank you so much for the review! ღ( ´･ᴗ･` )
Thanks for the link. So what Ojaswin has suggested has been slightly
different though. He suggested to trim the order before the for loop, not
after the first iteration as you do which is what was confusing me. I'd
even suggest to replace your check with:
/*
* mb_avg_fragment_size_order() returns order in a way that makes
* retrieving back the length using (1 << order) inaccurate. Hence, use
* fls() instead since we need to know the actual length while modifying
* goal length.
*/
- order = fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) - 1;
+ order = min(fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len), MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb)) - 1;
min_order = order - sbi->s_mb_best_avail_max_trim_order;
if (min_order < 0)
min_order = 0;
Honza
Yes, I changed it that way because it only happens when an exception
somewhere causes fe_len to be a huge value. I think in this case we
should report the exception via WARN_ON_ONCE(), and trimming the
order before the for loop will bypass WARN_ON_ONCE and not report
any errors.
Fair enough. Then:
/*
* mb_avg_fragment_size_order() returns order in a way that makes
* retrieving back the length using (1 << order) inaccurate. Hence, use
* fls() instead since we need to know the actual length while modifying
* goal length.
*/
order = fls(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) - 1;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order > MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb) - 1))
+ order = MB_NUM_ORDERS(ac->ac_sb) - 1;
min_order = order - sbi->s_mb_best_avail_max_trim_order;
if (min_order < 0)
min_order = 0;
Still much less confusing...
Honza
Yes this does look much better!
Let me send v3!
Thanks for the suggestion!
--
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
.
