[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix remote symlinks on V5/CRC filesystems

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix remote symlinks on V5/CRC filesystems
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:49:55 -0500
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150615224710.GE10224@dastard>
References: <557F4E1E.8000505@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150615222157.GD10224@dastard> <557F532F.9060505@xxxxxxxxxx> <20150615224710.GE10224@dastard>
On 6/15/15 5:47 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:35:27PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 6/15/15 5:21 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 05:13:50PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> If we create a CRC filesystem, mount it, and create a symlink with
>>>> a path long enough that it can't live in the inode, we get a very
>>>> strange result upon remount:
>>>> # ls -l mnt
>>>> total 4
>>>> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 929 Jun 15 16:58 link -> XSLM
>>>> XSLM is the V5 symlink block header magic (which happens to be
>>>> followed by a NUL, so the string looks terminated).
>>>> xfs_readlink_bmap() advanced cur_chunk by the size of the header
>>>> for CRC filesystems, but never actually used that pointer; it
>>>> kept reading from bp->b_addr, which is the start of the block,
>>>> rather than the start of the symlink data after the header.
>>>> Looks like this problem goes back to v3.10.
>>>> Fixing this gets us reading the proper link target, again.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> ---
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_symlink.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_symlink.c
>>>> index 3df411e..40c0765 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_symlink.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_symlink.c
>>>> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ xfs_readlink_bmap(
>>>>                    cur_chunk += sizeof(struct xfs_dsymlink_hdr);
>>>>            }
>>>> -          memcpy(link + offset, bp->b_addr, byte_cnt);
>>>> +          memcpy(link + offset, cur_chunk, byte_cnt);
>>>>            pathlen -= byte_cnt;
>>>>            offset += byte_cnt;
>>> Looks like the correct fix, so:
>>> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> However, it raises a more disturbing question: how did we not trip
>>> over this until now? I though we had long symlink test coverage in
>>> xfstests but clearly we haven't - do you have a test that closes
>>> this verification hole?
>> It was a smaller part of a larger test harness I was using with xfs_metadump,
>> which was trying to create every type of on-disk metadata.  However, even 
>> with
>> that I only stumbled on it, because I was only verifying that the results 
>> were
>> uncorrupted and consistent with the original, not actually verifying that
>> what I created was still there (on the original!)
>> So, I don't have a test specific to this, no, but could certainly write one;
>> I suppose a quick targeted fstest for just this bug would be ok, although
>> a test w/ broader scope might make sense too.
> Sure, the metadump test is a good idea, but my question is more
> asking why our broader tests haven't already covered verifying
> MAXPATHLEN symlinks work correctly or not. Surely symlink
> correctness is verified *somewhere* (even outside xfstests,
> e.g. LTP?), and if so why haven't we seen this before now? If not,
> then I'd suggest we've just uncovered a potential Nest O' Bugs...

A) CRCs aren't default
B) I bet LTP doesn't do a remount to verify on-disk persistence
C) ???
D) Profit!


> Cheers,
> Dave.

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