From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: wqu@suse.com,dsterba@suse.com,fdmanana@suse.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix data overwriting bug during buffered write when" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 17:34:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2025030412-gliding-oncoming-9727@gregkh> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.6.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x efa11fd269c139e29b71ec21bc9c9c0063fde40d
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025030412-gliding-oncoming-9727@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^..
Possible dependencies:
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From efa11fd269c139e29b71ec21bc9c9c0063fde40d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:06:33 +1030
Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix data overwriting bug during buffered write when
block size < page size
[BUG]
When running generic/418 with a btrfs whose block size < page size
(subpage cases), it always fails.
And the following minimal reproducer is more than enough to trigger it
reliably:
workload()
{
mkfs.btrfs -s 4k -f $dev > /dev/null
dmesg -C
mount $dev $mnt
$fsstree_dir/src/dio-invalidate-cache -r -b 4096 -n 3 -i 1 -f $mnt/diotest
ret=$?
umount $mnt
stop_trace
if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
fail
fi
}
for (( i = 0; i < 1024; i++)); do
echo "=== $i/$runtime ==="
workload
done
[CAUSE]
With extra trace printk added to the following functions:
- btrfs_buffered_write()
* Which folio is touched
* The file offset (start) where the buffered write is at
* How many bytes are copied
* The content of the write (the first 2 bytes)
- submit_one_sector()
* Which folio is touched
* The position inside the folio
* The content of the page cache (the first 2 bytes)
- pagecache_isize_extended()
* The parameters of the function itself
* The parameters of the folio_zero_range()
Which are enough to show the problem:
22.158114: btrfs_buffered_write: folio pos=0 start=0 copied=4096 content=0x0101
22.158161: submit_one_sector: r/i=5/257 folio=0 pos=0 content=0x0101
22.158609: btrfs_buffered_write: folio pos=0 start=4096 copied=4096 content=0x0101
22.158634: btrfs_buffered_write: folio pos=0 start=8192 copied=4096 content=0x0101
22.158650: pagecache_isize_extended: folio=0 from=4096 to=8192 bsize=4096 zero off=4096 len=8192
22.158682: submit_one_sector: r/i=5/257 folio=0 pos=4096 content=0x0000
22.158686: submit_one_sector: r/i=5/257 folio=0 pos=8192 content=0x0101
The tool dio-invalidate-cache will start 3 threads, each doing a buffered
write with 0x01 at offset 0, 4096 and 8192, do a fsync, then do a direct read,
and compare the read buffer with the write buffer.
Note that all 3 btrfs_buffered_write() are writing the correct 0x01 into
the page cache.
But at submit_one_sector(), at file offset 4096, the content is zeroed
out, by pagecache_isize_extended().
The race happens like this:
Thread A is writing into range [4K, 8K).
Thread B is writing into range [8K, 12k).
Thread A | Thread B
-------------------------------------+------------------------------------
btrfs_buffered_write() | btrfs_buffered_write()
|- old_isize = 4K; | |- old_isize = 4096;
|- btrfs_inode_lock() | |
|- write into folio range [4K, 8K) | |
|- pagecache_isize_extended() | |
| extend isize from 4096 to 8192 | |
| no folio_zero_range() called | |
|- btrfs_inode_lock() | |
| |- btrfs_inode_lock()
| |- write into folio range [8K, 12K)
| |- pagecache_isize_extended()
| | calling folio_zero_range(4K, 8K)
| | This is caused by the old_isize is
| | grabbed too early, without any
| | inode lock.
| |- btrfs_inode_unlock()
The @old_isize is grabbed without inode lock, causing race between two
buffered write threads and making pagecache_isize_extended() to zero
range which is still containing cached data.
And this is only affecting subpage btrfs, because for regular blocksize
== page size case, the function pagecache_isize_extended() will do
nothing if the block size >= page size.
[FIX]
Grab the old i_size while holding the inode lock.
This means each buffered write thread will have a stable view of the
old inode size, thus avoid the above race.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.15+
Fixes: 5e8b9ef30392 ("btrfs: move pos increment and pagecache extension to btrfs_buffered_write")
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
index ed3c0d6546c5..0b568c8d24cb 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
@@ -1090,7 +1090,7 @@ ssize_t btrfs_buffered_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *i)
u64 lockend;
size_t num_written = 0;
ssize_t ret;
- loff_t old_isize = i_size_read(inode);
+ loff_t old_isize;
unsigned int ilock_flags = 0;
const bool nowait = (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT);
unsigned int bdp_flags = (nowait ? BDP_ASYNC : 0);
@@ -1103,6 +1103,13 @@ ssize_t btrfs_buffered_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *i)
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
+ /*
+ * We can only trust the isize with inode lock held, or it can race with
+ * other buffered writes and cause incorrect call of
+ * pagecache_isize_extended() to overwrite existing data.
+ */
+ old_isize = i_size_read(inode);
+
ret = generic_write_checks(iocb, i);
if (ret <= 0)
goto out;
reply other threads:[~2025-03-04 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2025030412-gliding-oncoming-9727@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=fdmanana@suse.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.