[PATCH v2] staging: erofs: fix an error handling in erofs_readdir()

Gao Xiang hsiangkao at aol.com
Sun Aug 18 10:52:58 UTC 2019


Hi Chao,

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:39:52PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2019-8-18 10:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:32:45AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 07:20:55PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:56:31AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> >>>> @@ -82,8 +82,12 @@ static int erofs_readdir(struct file *f, struct dir_context *ctx)
> >>>>  		unsigned int nameoff, maxsize;
> >>>>  
> >>>>  		dentry_page = read_mapping_page(mapping, i, NULL);
> >>>> -		if (IS_ERR(dentry_page))
> >>>> -			continue;
> >>>> +		if (IS_ERR(dentry_page)) {
> >>>> +			errln("fail to readdir of logical block %u of nid %llu",
> >>>> +			      i, EROFS_V(dir)->nid);
> >>>> +			err = PTR_ERR(dentry_page);
> >>>> +			break;
> >>>
> >>> I don't think you want to use the errno that came back from
> >>> read_mapping_page() (which is, I think, always going to be -EIO).
> >>> Rather you want -EFSCORRUPTED, at least if I understand the recent
> >>> patches to ext2/ext4/f2fs/xfs/...
> >>
> >> Thanks for your reply and noticing this. :)
> >>
> >> Yes, as I talked with you about read_mapping_page() in a xfs related
> >> topic earlier, I think I fully understand what returns here.
> >>
> >> I actually had some concern about that before sending out this patch.
> >> You know the status is
> >>    PG_uptodate is not set and PG_error is set here.
> >>
> >> But we cannot know it is actually a disk read error or due to
> >> corrupted images (due to lack of page flags or some status, and
> >> I think it could be a waste of page structure space for such
> >> corrupted image or disk error)...
> >>
> >> And some people also like propagate errors from insiders...
> >> (and they could argue about err = -EFSCORRUPTED as well..)
> >>
> >> I'd like hear your suggestion about this after my words above?
> >> still return -EFSCORRUPTED?
> > 
> > I don't think it matters whether it's due to a disk error or a corrupted
> > image.  We can't read the directory entry, so we should probably return
> > -EFSCORRUPTED.  Thinking about it some more, read_mapping_page() can
> > also return -ENOMEM, so it should probably look something like this:
> > 
> > 		err = 0;
> > 		if (dentry_page == ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM))
> > 			err = -ENOMEM;
> > 		else if (IS_ERR(dentry_page)) {
> > 			errln("fail to readdir of logical block %u of nid %llu",
> > 			      i, EROFS_V(dir)->nid);
> > 			err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> 
> Well, if there is real IO error happen under filesystem, we should return -EIO
> instead of EFSCORRUPTED?
> 
> The right fix may be that doing sanity check on on-disk blkaddr, and return
> -EFSCORRUPTED if the blkaddr is invalid and propagate the error to its caller
> erofs_readdir(), IIUC below error info.

In my thought, I actually don't care what is actually returned
(In other words, I have no tendency about EFSCORRUPTED / EIO)
as long as it behaves normal for corrupted image.

A little concern is that I have no idea whether all user problems
can handle EUCLEAN properly.

I don't want to limit blkaddr as what ->blocks recorded in
erofs_super_block since it's already used for our hotpatching
approach and that field is only used for statfs() for users
to know its visible size, and block layer will block such
invalid block access.

All in all, that is minor. I think we can fix as what Matthew said.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang

> 
> > [36297.354090] attempt to access beyond end of device
> > [36297.354098] loop17: rw=0, want=29887428984, limit=1953128
> > [36297.354107] attempt to access beyond end of device
> > [36297.354109] loop17: rw=0, want=29887428480, limit=1953128
> > [36301.827234] attempt to access beyond end of device
> > [36301.827243] loop17: rw=0, want=29887428480, limit=1953128
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 		}
> > 
> > 		if (err)
> > 			break;
> > 


More information about the devel mailing list