On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 09:40:32PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/2/21 下午9:35, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:12:44PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> @@ -4036,7 +4037,39 @@ int btree_write_cache_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >> end_write_bio(&epd, ret);
> >> return ret;
> >> }
> >> - ret = flush_write_bio(&epd);
> >> + /*
> >> + * If something went wrong, don't allow any metadata write bio to be
> >> + * submitted.
> >> + *
> >> + * This would prevent use-after-free if we had dirty pages not
> >> + * cleaned up, which can still happen by fuzzed images.
> >> + *
> >> + * - Bad extent tree
> >> + * Allowing existing tree block to be allocated for other trees.
> >> + *
> >> + * - Log tree operations
> >> + * Exiting tree blocks get allocated to log tree, bumps its
> >> + * generation, then get cleaned in tree re-balance.
> >> + * Such tree block will not be written back, since it's clean,
> >> + * thus no WRITTEN flag set.
> >> + * And after log writes back, this tree block is not traced by
> >> + * any dirty extent_io_tree.
> >> + *
> >> + * - Offending tree block gets re-dirtied from its original owner
> >> + * Since it has bumped generation, no WRITTEN flag, it can be
> >> + * reused without COWing. This tree block will not be traced
> >> + * by btrfs_transaction::dirty_pages.
> >> + *
> >> + * Now such dirty tree block will not be cleaned by any dirty
> >> + * extent io tree. Thus we don't want to submit such wild eb
> >> + * if the fs already has error.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!test_bit(BTRFS_FS_STATE_ERROR, &fs_info->fs_state)) {
> >> + ret = flush_write_bio(&epd);
> >> + } else {
> >> + ret = -EUCLEAN;
> >> + end_write_bio(&epd, ret);
> >> + }
> >
> > This replaces one instance of flush_write_bio, would it make sense to
> > wrap it to flush_write_bio or some other helper? There might be places
> > where not handling the fs error state would be acceptable, so eg.
> >
> > flush_write_bio = as it is now
> >
> > flush_write_bio_or_end = does the above
> >
>
> I don't believe there are other call sites needs such special handling,
> thus a wrapper only used once doesn't make much sense.
>
> Unless we're going to introduce more path for btree writeback, current
> one would be good enough I guess.
I see, thanks. The steps to reproduce are quite complicated already and
expecting crafted data. There's probably more but would need a similarly
convoluted way of hitting a missing error code fixup.
We could add more invariant checks that would catch that something is
done at a wrong time, like here metadata writeback after everything has
been shut down.
