[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: don't leak EFSBADCRC to userspace

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: don't leak EFSBADCRC to userspace
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:31:02 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <53150032.9050801@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1393825194-1719-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1393825194-1719-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5314BD2B.1010904@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20140303221314.GI13647@dastard> <53150032.9050801@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 04:20:34PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/3/14, 4:13 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:34:35AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 3/2/14, 11:39 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> While the verifier reoutines may return EFSBADCRC when a buffer ahs
> >>> a bad CRC, we need to translate that to EFSCORRUPTED so that the
> >>> higher layers treat the error appropriately and so we return a
> >>> consistent error to userspace. This fixes a xfs/005 regression.
> >>
> >> Can you say a little more about the philosophy here?
> >>
> >> xfs/005 regresses because it expects "structure needs cleaning"
> >>
> >> So if we instead return our (icky) CRC error code, we get something else.
> >>
> >> But it is truly a different root cause.
> >>
> >> So the goal is to NEVER leak EFSBADCRC to userspace?  Maybe a comment
> >> above that error definition would help document that.
> > 
> > Not permanently.  At the moment, none of the code handles it
> > correctly, and the leak to userspace is just a symptom that tells us
> > we got somethign wrong. We have plenty of places where we check for
> > EFSCORRUPTED and do something special, but if we get EFSBADCRC
> > instead it will do the wrong thing....
> > 
> >> And I'm bit worried that we'll leak more in the future if things changed,
> >> or if things got missed here.  Everything you have here looks fine, but
> >> it's not obvious that every path has been caught; it seems a bit random.
> > 
> > It's not random. It's buffer reads that matter, and I
> > checked all the calls to xfs_buf_read, xfs_buf_read_map,
> > xfs_trans_read_buf and xfs_trans_read_buf. There aren't any other
> > read interfaces that use verifiers, and so nothing else can return
> > EFSBADCRC. For the log recovery cases, the buffer reads don' use
> > verifiers, and those that do won't return EFSBADCRC (e.g. inode
> > buffers).
> > 
> >> I know we _just_ merged my "differentiator" patches, but I wonder if
> >> it would be better to add XFS_BSTATE_BADCRC to b_state or some other 
> >> field, and go back to always assigning EFSCORRUPTED.  What do you think?
> > 
> > It's just the first layer of adding differentiating support. We've
> > just put the mechanism in place to do the differentiation because we
> > need it for *userspace functionality* before we need it for
> > in-kernel functionality. We put it in the kernel because it has
> > value to us developers to indicate what type of corruption error was
> > detected in the dmesg output. We can't however, do everything at
> > once, so for the moment the kernel code needs to translate it back
> > to something the higher layers understand and treat correctly.
> > 
> >> When I wrote those I wasn't thinking about keeping it all internal
> >> to the filesystem.
> > 
> > Only for the moment, until there's code in the kernel that makes it
> > a meaningfully different error.
> Ok, thanks.  Modulo Brian's question about other paths, what is here
> so far looks ok to me, then.  A commit message that indicates that
> this is somewhat temporary might be in order?

Sure, I can improve the commit message by including a summary of
this discussion. ;)


Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>