Re: [PATCH] f2fs: set deadline to drop expired inmem pages

[Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>]

On 04/17, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/4/17 14:44, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2018/4/17 4:16, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >> On 04/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>> On 2018/4/13 12:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>> On 04/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>> On 2018/4/13 9:04, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>> On 04/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2018/4/8 16:13, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> f2fs doesn't allow abuse on atomic write class interface, so except
> >>>>>>>> limiting in-mem pages' total memory usage capacity, we need to limit
> >>>>>>>> start-commit time as well, otherwise we may run into infinite loop
> >>>>>>>> during foreground GC because target blocks in victim segment are
> >>>>>>>> belong to atomic opened file for long time.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now, we will check the condition with f2fs_balance_fs_bg in
> >>>>>>>> background threads, once if user doesn't commit data exceeding 30
> >>>>>>>> seconds, we will drop all cached data, so I expect it can keep our
> >>>>>>>> system running safely to prevent Dos attack.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is it worth to add this patch to avoid abuse on atomic write interface by user?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmm, hope to see a real problem first in this case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think this can be a more critical security leak instead of a potential issue
> >>>>> which we can wait for someone reporting that can be too late.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, user can simply write a huge file whose data spread in all f2fs
> >>>>> segments, once user open that file as atomic, foreground GC will suffer
> >>>>> deadloop, causing denying any further service of f2fs.
> >>>>
> >>>> How can you guarantee it won't happen within 30sec? If you want to avoid that,
> >>>
> >>> Now the value is smaller than generic hang task threshold in order to avoid
> >>> foreground GC helding gc_mutex too long, we can tune that parameter?
> >>>
> >>>> you have to take a look at foreground gc.
> >>>
> >>> What do you mean? let GC moves blocks of atomic write opened file?
> >>
> >> I thought that we first need to detect when foreground GC is stuck by such the
> >> huge number of atomic writes. Then, we need to do something like dropping all
> >> the atomic writes.
> > 
> > Yup, that will be reasonable. :)
> 
> If we drop all atomic writes, for those atomic write who act very normal, it
> will case them losing all cached data without any hint like error return value.
> So should we just:
> 
> - drop expired inmem pages.
> - or set FI_DROP_ATOMIC flag, return -EIO during atomic_commit, and reset the flag.

Like FI_ATOMIC_REVOKE_REQUEST in atomic_commit?

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > .
> >