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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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,
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> 
>  .
> 
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > .
> > 

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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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,
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> 
>  .
> 
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > .
> > 

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

[Chao Yu]

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.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>

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

 .

>>
>> .
>>
> 
> 
> .
> 

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

[Chao Yu]

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.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>

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

 .

>>
>> .
>>
> 
> 
> .
> 

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

[Chao Yu]

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. :)

Thanks,

> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>

 Thanks,

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

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

[Chao Yu]

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. :)

Thanks,

> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>

 Thanks,

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

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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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.

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

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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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.

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

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

[Chao Yu]

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?

Thanks,

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

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

[Chao Yu]

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?

Thanks,

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

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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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,
you have to take a look at foreground gc.

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

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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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,
you have to take a look at foreground gc.

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

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

[Chao Yu]

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.

Thanks,

> 
>> Thanks,
> 
> .
> 

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

[Chao Yu]

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.

Thanks,

> 
>> Thanks,
> 
> .
> 

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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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.

> Thanks,

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

[Jaegeuk Kim]

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.

> Thanks,

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

[Chao Yu]

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?
Thanks,

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

[Chao Yu]

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?
Thanks,

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

[Chao Yu]

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.

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu 
---
 fs/f2fs/f2fs.h|  2 ++
 fs/f2fs/segment.c | 40 
 fs/f2fs/segment.h |  2 ++
 fs/f2fs/super.c   |  1 +
 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
index 1725b82d9fb2..5b617231970b 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
@@ -653,6 +653,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
struct list_head dirty_list;/* dirty list for dirs and files */
struct list_head gdirty_list;   /* linked in global dirty list */
struct list_head inmem_ilist;   /* list for inmem inodes */
+   struct timespec inmem_time; /* atomic write start time */
struct list_head inmem_pages;   /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
struct task_struct *inmem_task; /* store inmemory task */
struct mutex inmem_lock;/* lock for inmemory pages */
@@ -2859,6 +2860,7 @@ void destroy_node_manager_caches(void);
 bool need_SSR(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi);
 void register_inmem_page(struct inode *inode, struct page *page);
 void drop_inmem_pages_all(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi);
+void drop_inmem_pages_exceed_time(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi);
 void drop_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode);
 void drop_inmem_page(struct inode *inode, struct page *page);
 int commit_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode);
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index e61faff9b109..8a558f038f9f 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -208,6 +208,8 @@ void register_inmem_page(struct inode *inode, struct page 
*page)
spin_lock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
if (list_empty(>inmem_ilist))
list_add_tail(>inmem_ilist, >inode_list[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+   if (!timespec_valid(>inmem_time))
+   fi->inmem_time = current_kernel_time();
spin_unlock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
inc_page_count(F2FS_I_SB(inode), F2FS_INMEM_PAGES);
mutex_unlock(>inmem_lock);
@@ -295,6 +297,36 @@ void drop_inmem_pages_all(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
goto next;
 }
 
+void drop_inmem_pages_exceed_time(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
+{
+   struct list_head *head = >inode_list[ATOMIC_FILE];
+   struct inode *inode;
+   struct f2fs_inode_info *fi, *tmp;
+
+next:
+   inode = NULL;
+
+   spin_lock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+   list_for_each_entry_safe(fi, tmp, head, inmem_ilist) {
+   struct timespec ts = current_kernel_time();
+
+   ts.tv_sec -= DEF_ATOMIC_COMMIT_INTERVAL;
+   if (timespec_compare(>inmem_time, ) >= 0)
+   continue;
+   inode = igrab(>vfs_inode);
+   break;
+   }
+   spin_unlock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+
+   if (inode) {
+   f2fs_msg(sbi->sb, KERN_WARNING,
+   "drop inmem pages of inode (ino:%lu)", inode->i_ino);
+   drop_inmem_pages(inode);
+   iput(inode);
+   goto next;
+   }
+}
+
 void drop_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
 {
struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
@@ -306,6 +338,9 @@ void drop_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
if (!list_empty(>inmem_ilist))
list_del_init(>inmem_ilist);
spin_unlock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+
+   fi->inmem_time.tv_sec = -1;
+
mutex_unlock(>inmem_lock);
 
clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_ATOMIC_FILE);
@@ -441,6 +476,9 @@ int commit_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
if (!list_empty(>inmem_ilist))
list_del_init(>inmem_ilist);
spin_unlock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+
+   fi->inmem_time.tv_sec = -1;
+
mutex_unlock(>inmem_lock);
 
clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_ATOMIC_COMMIT);
@@ -491,6 +529,8 @@ void f2fs_balance_fs_bg(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
else
build_free_nids(sbi, false, false);
 
+   drop_inmem_pages_exceed_time(sbi);
+
if (!is_idle(sbi) && !excess_dirty_nats(sbi))
return;
 
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
index 3325d0769723..f5410dcb76b4 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
@@ -215,6 +215,8 @@ struct segment_allocation {
 #define IS_DUMMY_WRITTEN_PAGE(page)\
(page_private(page) == (unsigned long)DUMMY_WRITTEN_PAGE)
 
+#define DEF_ATOMIC_COMMIT_INTERVAL 30
+
 struct inmem_pages {
struct list_head list;
struct page 

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

[Chao Yu]

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.

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu 
---
 fs/f2fs/f2fs.h|  2 ++
 fs/f2fs/segment.c | 40 
 fs/f2fs/segment.h |  2 ++
 fs/f2fs/super.c   |  1 +
 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
index 1725b82d9fb2..5b617231970b 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
@@ -653,6 +653,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
struct list_head dirty_list;/* dirty list for dirs and files */
struct list_head gdirty_list;   /* linked in global dirty list */
struct list_head inmem_ilist;   /* list for inmem inodes */
+   struct timespec inmem_time; /* atomic write start time */
struct list_head inmem_pages;   /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
struct task_struct *inmem_task; /* store inmemory task */
struct mutex inmem_lock;/* lock for inmemory pages */
@@ -2859,6 +2860,7 @@ void destroy_node_manager_caches(void);
 bool need_SSR(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi);
 void register_inmem_page(struct inode *inode, struct page *page);
 void drop_inmem_pages_all(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi);
+void drop_inmem_pages_exceed_time(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi);
 void drop_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode);
 void drop_inmem_page(struct inode *inode, struct page *page);
 int commit_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode);
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index e61faff9b109..8a558f038f9f 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -208,6 +208,8 @@ void register_inmem_page(struct inode *inode, struct page 
*page)
spin_lock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
if (list_empty(>inmem_ilist))
list_add_tail(>inmem_ilist, >inode_list[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+   if (!timespec_valid(>inmem_time))
+   fi->inmem_time = current_kernel_time();
spin_unlock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
inc_page_count(F2FS_I_SB(inode), F2FS_INMEM_PAGES);
mutex_unlock(>inmem_lock);
@@ -295,6 +297,36 @@ void drop_inmem_pages_all(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
goto next;
 }
 
+void drop_inmem_pages_exceed_time(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
+{
+   struct list_head *head = >inode_list[ATOMIC_FILE];
+   struct inode *inode;
+   struct f2fs_inode_info *fi, *tmp;
+
+next:
+   inode = NULL;
+
+   spin_lock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+   list_for_each_entry_safe(fi, tmp, head, inmem_ilist) {
+   struct timespec ts = current_kernel_time();
+
+   ts.tv_sec -= DEF_ATOMIC_COMMIT_INTERVAL;
+   if (timespec_compare(>inmem_time, ) >= 0)
+   continue;
+   inode = igrab(>vfs_inode);
+   break;
+   }
+   spin_unlock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+
+   if (inode) {
+   f2fs_msg(sbi->sb, KERN_WARNING,
+   "drop inmem pages of inode (ino:%lu)", inode->i_ino);
+   drop_inmem_pages(inode);
+   iput(inode);
+   goto next;
+   }
+}
+
 void drop_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
 {
struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
@@ -306,6 +338,9 @@ void drop_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
if (!list_empty(>inmem_ilist))
list_del_init(>inmem_ilist);
spin_unlock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+
+   fi->inmem_time.tv_sec = -1;
+
mutex_unlock(>inmem_lock);
 
clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_ATOMIC_FILE);
@@ -441,6 +476,9 @@ int commit_inmem_pages(struct inode *inode)
if (!list_empty(>inmem_ilist))
list_del_init(>inmem_ilist);
spin_unlock(>inode_lock[ATOMIC_FILE]);
+
+   fi->inmem_time.tv_sec = -1;
+
mutex_unlock(>inmem_lock);
 
clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_ATOMIC_COMMIT);
@@ -491,6 +529,8 @@ void f2fs_balance_fs_bg(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
else
build_free_nids(sbi, false, false);
 
+   drop_inmem_pages_exceed_time(sbi);
+
if (!is_idle(sbi) && !excess_dirty_nats(sbi))
return;
 
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
index 3325d0769723..f5410dcb76b4 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
@@ -215,6 +215,8 @@ struct segment_allocation {
 #define IS_DUMMY_WRITTEN_PAGE(page)\
(page_private(page) == (unsigned long)DUMMY_WRITTEN_PAGE)
 
+#define DEF_ATOMIC_COMMIT_INTERVAL 30
+
 struct inmem_pages {
struct list_head list;
struct page *page;
diff --git