On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> When calling into _xfs_log_force{,_lsn}() with a pointer
> to log_flushed variable, log_flushed will be set to 1 if:
> 1. xlog_sync() is called to flush the active log buffer
> AND/OR
> 2. xlog_wait() is called to wait on a syncing log buffers
>
> xfs_file_fsync() checks the value of log_flushed after
> _xfs_log_force_lsn() call to optimize away an explicit
> PREFLUSH request to the data block device after writing
> out all the file's pages to disk.
>
> This optimization is incorrect in the following sequence of events:
>
> Task A Task B
> -------------------------------------------------------
> xfs_file_fsync()
> _xfs_log_force_lsn()
> xlog_sync()
> [submit PREFLUSH]
> xfs_file_fsync()
> file_write_and_wait_range()
> [submit WRITE X]
> [endio WRITE X]
> _xfs_log_force_lsn()
> xlog_wait()
> [endio PREFLUSH]
>
> The write X is not guarantied to be on persistent storage
> when PREFLUSH request in completed, because write A was submitted
> after the PREFLUSH request, but xfs_file_fsync() of task A will
> be notified of log_flushed=1 and will skip explicit flush.
>
> If the system crashes after fsync of task A, write X may not be
> present on disk after reboot.
>
> This bug was discovered and demonstrated using Josef Bacik's
> dm-log-writes target, which can be used to record block io operations
> and then replay a subset of these operations onto the target device.
> The test goes something like this:
> - Use fsx to execute ops of a file and record ops on log device
> - Every now and then fsync the file, store md5 of file and mark
> the location in the log
> - Then replay log onto device for each mark, mount fs and compare
> md5 of file to stored value
>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxx>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Christoph, Dave,
>
> It's hard to believe, but I think the reported bug has been around
> since 2005 f538d4da8d52 ("[XFS] write barrier support"), but I did
> not try to test old kernels.
Forgot to tag commit message with:
Fixes: f538d4da8d52 ("[XFS] write barrier support")
Maybe the tag could be added when applying to recent stables,
so distros and older downstream stables can see the tag.
The disclosure of the security bug fix (commit b31ff3cdf5) made me wonder
if possible data loss bug should also be disclosed in some distros forum?
I bet some users would care more about the latter than the former.
Coincidentally, both data loss and security bugs fix the same commit..
Cheers,
Amir.
