* [PATCH] Btrfs: fix race leading to incorrect item deletion when dropping extents
@ 2015-11-09 13:59 fdmanana
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: fdmanana @ 2015-11-09 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: clm, Filipe Manana, stable
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
While running a stress test I got the following warning triggered:
[191627.672810] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[191627.673949] WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 8447 at fs/btrfs/file.c:779 __btrfs_drop_extents+0x391/0xa50 [btrfs]()
(...)
[191627.701485] Call Trace:
[191627.702037] [<ffffffff8145f077>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b
[191627.702992] [<ffffffff81095de5>] ? console_unlock+0x356/0x3a2
[191627.704091] [<ffffffff8104b3b0>] warn_slowpath_common+0xa1/0xbb
[191627.705380] [<ffffffffa0664499>] ? __btrfs_drop_extents+0x391/0xa50 [btrfs]
[191627.706637] [<ffffffff8104b46d>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x1c
[191627.707789] [<ffffffffa0664499>] __btrfs_drop_extents+0x391/0xa50 [btrfs]
[191627.709155] [<ffffffff8115663c>] ? cache_alloc_debugcheck_after.isra.32+0x171/0x1d0
[191627.712444] [<ffffffff81155007>] ? kmemleak_alloc_recursive.constprop.40+0x16/0x18
[191627.714162] [<ffffffffa06570c9>] insert_reserved_file_extent.constprop.40+0x83/0x24e [btrfs]
[191627.715887] [<ffffffffa065422b>] ? start_transaction+0x3bb/0x610 [btrfs]
[191627.717287] [<ffffffffa065b604>] btrfs_finish_ordered_io+0x273/0x4e2 [btrfs]
[191627.728865] [<ffffffffa065b888>] finish_ordered_fn+0x15/0x17 [btrfs]
[191627.730045] [<ffffffffa067d688>] normal_work_helper+0x14c/0x32c [btrfs]
[191627.731256] [<ffffffffa067d96a>] btrfs_endio_write_helper+0x12/0x14 [btrfs]
[191627.732661] [<ffffffff81061119>] process_one_work+0x24c/0x4ae
[191627.733822] [<ffffffff810615b0>] worker_thread+0x206/0x2c2
[191627.734857] [<ffffffff810613aa>] ? process_scheduled_works+0x2f/0x2f
[191627.736052] [<ffffffff810613aa>] ? process_scheduled_works+0x2f/0x2f
[191627.737349] [<ffffffff810669a6>] kthread+0xef/0xf7
[191627.738267] [<ffffffff810f3b3a>] ? time_hardirqs_on+0x15/0x28
[191627.739330] [<ffffffff810668b7>] ? __kthread_parkme+0xad/0xad
[191627.741976] [<ffffffff81465592>] ret_from_fork+0x42/0x70
[191627.743080] [<ffffffff810668b7>] ? __kthread_parkme+0xad/0xad
[191627.744206] ---[ end trace bbfddacb7aaada8d ]---
$ cat -n fs/btrfs/file.c
691 int __btrfs_drop_extents(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
(...)
758 btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &key, path->slots[0]);
759 if (key.objectid > ino ||
760 key.type > BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY || key.offset >= end)
761 break;
762
763 fi = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, path->slots[0],
764 struct btrfs_file_extent_item);
765 extent_type = btrfs_file_extent_type(leaf, fi);
766
767 if (extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG ||
768 extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) {
(...)
774 } else if (extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_INLINE) {
(...)
778 } else {
779 WARN_ON(1);
780 extent_end = search_start;
781 }
(...)
This happened because the item we were processing did not match a file
extent item (its key type != BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY), and even on this
case we cast the item to a struct btrfs_file_extent_item pointer and
then find a type field value that does not match any of the expected
values (BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_[REG|PREALLOC|INLINE]). This scenario happens
due to a tiny time window where a race can happen as exemplified below.
For example, consider the following scenario where we're using the
NO_HOLES feature and we have the following two neighbour leafs:
Leaf X (has N items) Leaf Y
[ ... (257 INODE_ITEM 0) (257 INODE_REF 256) ] [ (257 EXTENT_DATA 8192), ... ]
slot N - 2 slot N - 1 slot 0
Our inode 257 has an implicit hole in the range [0, 8K[ (implicit rather
than explicit because NO_HOLES is enabled). Now if our inode has an
ordered extent for the range [4K, 8K[ that is finishing, the following
can happen:
CPU 1 CPU 2
btrfs_finish_ordered_io()
insert_reserved_file_extent()
__btrfs_drop_extents()
Searches for the key
(257 EXTENT_DATA 4096) through
btrfs_lookup_file_extent()
Key not found and we get a path where
path->nodes[0] == leaf X and
path->slots[0] == N
Because path->slots[0] is >=
btrfs_header_nritems(leaf X), we call
btrfs_next_leaf()
btrfs_next_leaf() releases the path
inserts key
(257 INODE_REF 4096)
at the end of leaf X,
leaf X now has N + 1 keys,
and the new key is at
slot N
btrfs_next_leaf() searches for
key (257 INODE_REF 256), with
path->keep_locks set to 1,
because it was the last key it
saw in leaf X
finds it in leaf X again and
notices it's no longer the last
key of the leaf, so it returns 0
with path->nodes[0] == leaf X and
path->slots[0] == N (which is now
< btrfs_header_nritems(leaf X)),
pointing to the new key
(257 INODE_REF 4096)
__btrfs_drop_extents() casts the
item at path->nodes[0], slot
path->slots[0], to a struct
btrfs_file_extent_item - it does
not skip keys for the target
inode with a type less than
BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY
(BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY < BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY)
sees a bogus value for the type
field triggering the WARN_ON in
the trace shown above, and sets
extent_end = search_start (4096)
does the if-then-else logic to
fixup 0 length extent items created
by a past bug from hole punching:
if (extent_end == key.offset &&
extent_end >= search_start)
goto delete_extent_item;
that evaluates to true and it ends
up deleting the key pointed to by
path->slots[0], (257 INODE_REF 4096),
from leaf X
The same could happen for example for a xattr that ends up having a key
with an offset value that matches search_start (very unlikely but not
impossible).
So fix this by ensuring that keys smaller than BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY are
skipped, never casted to struct btrfs_file_extent_item and never deleted
by accident. Also protect against the unexpected case of getting a key
for a lower inode number by skipping that key and issuing a warning.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/file.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
index cfa243c..3009d45 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
@@ -756,8 +756,16 @@ next_slot:
}
btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &key, path->slots[0]);
- if (key.objectid > ino ||
- key.type > BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY || key.offset >= end)
+
+ if (key.objectid > ino)
+ break;
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(key.objectid < ino) ||
+ key.type < BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY) {
+ ASSERT(del_nr == 0);
+ path->slots[0]++;
+ goto next_slot;
+ }
+ if (key.type > BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY || key.offset >= end)
break;
fi = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, path->slots[0],
@@ -776,8 +784,8 @@ next_slot:
btrfs_file_extent_inline_len(leaf,
path->slots[0], fi);
} else {
- WARN_ON(1);
- extent_end = search_start;
+ /* can't happen */
+ BUG();
}
/*
--
2.1.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2015-11-09 13:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-11-09 13:59 [PATCH] Btrfs: fix race leading to incorrect item deletion when dropping extents fdmanana
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.