On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 03:40:24PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> 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..
Yes the the patch ought to get sent on to stable w/ fixes tag. One
would hope that the distros will pick up the stable fixes from there.
That said, it's been in the kernel for 12 years without widespread
complaints about corruption, so I'm not sure this warrants public
disclosure via CVE/Phoronix vs. just fixing it.
--D
>
> Cheers,
> Amir.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
