On 05/05, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2022/5/5 5:28, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 04/28, Chao Yu wrote: > > > As Yanming reported in bugzilla: > > > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215895 > > > > > > I have encountered a bug in F2FS file system in kernel v5.17. > > > > > > The kernel message is shown below: > > > > > > kernel BUG at fs/inode.c:611! > > > Call Trace: > > > evict+0x282/0x4e0 > > > __dentry_kill+0x2b2/0x4d0 > > > dput+0x2dd/0x720 > > > do_renameat2+0x596/0x970 > > > __x64_sys_rename+0x78/0x90 > > > do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90 > > > > > > The root cause is: fuzzed inode has both inline_data flag and encrypted > > > flag, so after it was deleted by rename(), during f2fs_evict_inode(), > > > it will cause inline data conversion due to flags confilction, then > > > page cache will be polluted and trigger panic in clear_inode(). > > > > > > This patch tries to fix the issue by do more sanity checks for inline > > > data inode in sanity_check_inode(). > > > > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Reported-by: Ming Yan <yanming@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao.yu@xxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 7 +++++++ > > > fs/f2fs/inode.c | 3 +-- > > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > > index 27aa93caec06..64c511b498cc 100644 > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > > @@ -4173,6 +4173,13 @@ static inline void f2fs_set_encrypted_inode(struct inode *inode) > > > */ > > > static inline bool f2fs_post_read_required(struct inode *inode) > > > { > > > + /* > > > + * used by sanity_check_inode(), when disk layout fields has not > > > + * been synchronized to inmem fields. > > > + */ > > > + if (file_is_encrypt(inode) || file_is_verity(inode) || > > > + F2FS_I(inode)->i_flags & F2FS_COMPR_FL) > > > + return true; > > > return f2fs_encrypted_file(inode) || fsverity_active(inode) || > > > f2fs_compressed_file(inode); > > > } > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c > > > index 83639238a1fe..234b8ed02644 100644 > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c > > > @@ -276,8 +276,7 @@ static bool sanity_check_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *node_page) > > > } > > > } > > > - if (f2fs_has_inline_data(inode) && > > > - (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && !S_ISLNK(inode->i_mode))) { > > > + if (f2fs_has_inline_data(inode) && !f2fs_may_inline_data(inode)) { > > > > It seems f2fs_may_inline_data() is breaking the atomic write case. Please fix. > > sanity_check_inode() change only affect f2fs_iget(), during inode initialization, > file should not be set as atomic one, right? > > I didn't see any failure during 'f2fs_io write atomic_write' testcase... could you > please provide me detail of the testcase? I just applied this into my device and was getting lots of the below error messages resulting in open failures of database files. > > Thanks, > > > > > > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > > > f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: inode (ino=%lx, mode=%u) should not have inline_data, run fsck to fix", > > > __func__, inode->i_ino, inode->i_mode); > > > -- > > > 2.25.1
