[PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[YangWen]

KCSAN reported a data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs():
one CPU was updating a FAT12 entry while another CPU was copying the
whole sector to mirror FATs.Fix this by protecting memcpy() in
fat_mirror_bhs() with the same fat12_entry_lock that guards
fat12_ent_put(),so that the writer and the mirror operation
are mutually exclusive.

FAT-fs (loop5): error, clusters badly computed (404 != 401)
==================================================================
BUG: KCSAN: data-race in fat12_ent_put / fat_mirror_bhs

write to 0xffff888106c953e9 of 1 bytes by task 7452 on cpu 1:
 fat12_ent_put+0x74/0x170 fs/fat/fatent.c:168
 fat_ent_write+0x69/0xe0 fs/fat/fatent.c:417
 fat_chain_add+0x15d/0x440 fs/fat/misc.c:136
 fat_add_cluster fs/fat/inode.c:112 [inline]
 __fat_get_block fs/fat/inode.c:154 [inline]
 fat_get_block+0x46c/0x5e0 fs/fat/inode.c:189
 __block_write_begin_int+0x3fd/0xf90 fs/buffer.c:2145
 block_write_begin fs/buffer.c:2256 [inline]
 cont_write_begin+0x5fc/0x970 fs/buffer.c:2594
 fat_write_begin+0x4f/0xe0 fs/fat/inode.c:229
 cont_expand_zero fs/buffer.c:2522 [inline]
 cont_write_begin+0x1ad/0x970 fs/buffer.c:2584
 fat_write_begin+0x4f/0xe0 fs/fat/inode.c:229
 generic_perform_write+0x184/0x490 mm/filemap.c:4175
 __generic_file_write_iter+0x9e/0x120 mm/filemap.c:4292
 generic_file_write_iter+0x8d/0x2f0 mm/filemap.c:4318
 new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:593 [inline]
 vfs_write+0x52a/0x960 fs/read_write.c:686
 ksys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:793 [inline]
 __do_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:801 [inline]
 __se_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:798 [inline]
 __x64_sys_pwrite64+0xfd/0x150 fs/read_write.c:798
 x64_sys_call+0xc4d/0x2ff0 arch/x86/include/generated/asm/syscalls_64.h:19
 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
 do_syscall_64+0xd2/0x200 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

read to 0xffff888106c95200 of 512 bytes by task 7433 on cpu 0:
 fat_mirror_bhs+0x1df/0x320 fs/fat/fatent.c:395
 fat_ent_write+0xd0/0xe0 fs/fat/fatent.c:423
 fat_free fs/fat/file.c:363 [inline]
 fat_truncate_blocks+0x353/0x550 fs/fat/file.c:394
 fat_write_failed fs/fat/inode.c:218 [inline]
 fat_write_end+0xba/0x160 fs/fat/inode.c:246
 generic_perform_write+0x312/0x490 mm/filemap.c:4196
 __generic_file_write_iter+0x9e/0x120 mm/filemap.c:4292
 generic_file_write_iter+0x8d/0x2f0 mm/filemap.c:4318
 new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:593 [inline]
 vfs_write+0x52a/0x960 fs/read_write.c:686
 ksys_write+0xda/0x1a0 fs/read_write.c:738
 __do_sys_write fs/read_write.c:749 [inline]
 __se_sys_write fs/read_write.c:746 [inline]
 __x64_sys_write+0x40/0x50 fs/read_write.c:746
 x64_sys_call+0x27fe/0x2ff0 arch/x86/include/generated/asm/syscalls_64.h:2
 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
 do_syscall_64+0xd2/0x200 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

Signed-off-by: YangWen <anmuxixixi@gmail.com>
---
 fs/fat/fatent.c | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/fat/fatent.c b/fs/fat/fatent.c
index a7061c2ad8e4..e25775642489 100644
--- a/fs/fat/fatent.c
+++ b/fs/fat/fatent.c
@@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ static int fat_mirror_bhs(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
 	struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
 	struct buffer_head *c_bh;
 	int err, n, copy;
+	bool is_fat12 = is_fat12(sbi);
 
 	err = 0;
 	for (copy = 1; copy < sbi->fats; copy++) {
@@ -392,7 +393,17 @@ static int fat_mirror_bhs(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
 			}
 			/* Avoid race with userspace read via bdev */
 			lock_buffer(c_bh);
+			/*
+			 * For FAT12, protect memcpy() of the source sector
+			 * against concurrent 12-bit entry updates in
+			 * fat12_ent_put(), otherwise we may copy a torn
+			 * pair of bytes into the mirror FAT.
+			 */
+			if (is_fat12)
+				spin_lock(&fat12_entry_lock);
 			memcpy(c_bh->b_data, bhs[n]->b_data, sb->s_blocksize);
+			if (is_fat12)
+				spin_unlock(&fat12_entry_lock);
 			set_buffer_uptodate(c_bh);
 			unlock_buffer(c_bh);
 			mark_buffer_dirty_inode(c_bh, sbi->fat_inode);
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

YangWen <anmuxixixi@gmail.com> writes:

> KCSAN reported a data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs():
> one CPU was updating a FAT12 entry while another CPU was copying the
> whole sector to mirror FATs.Fix this by protecting memcpy() in
> fat_mirror_bhs() with the same fat12_entry_lock that guards
> fat12_ent_put(),so that the writer and the mirror operation
> are mutually exclusive.

Hm, what is wrong with temporary inconsistent?

If it had the race with future modification, it can be temporary
inconsistent. However, future modification will fix it by updating with
latest blocks, right?

Or did you actually get the inconsistent state after clean unmount?

Thanks.

> FAT-fs (loop5): error, clusters badly computed (404 != 401)
> ==================================================================
> BUG: KCSAN: data-race in fat12_ent_put / fat_mirror_bhs
>
> write to 0xffff888106c953e9 of 1 bytes by task 7452 on cpu 1:
>  fat12_ent_put+0x74/0x170 fs/fat/fatent.c:168
>  fat_ent_write+0x69/0xe0 fs/fat/fatent.c:417
>  fat_chain_add+0x15d/0x440 fs/fat/misc.c:136
>  fat_add_cluster fs/fat/inode.c:112 [inline]
>  __fat_get_block fs/fat/inode.c:154 [inline]
>  fat_get_block+0x46c/0x5e0 fs/fat/inode.c:189
>  __block_write_begin_int+0x3fd/0xf90 fs/buffer.c:2145
>  block_write_begin fs/buffer.c:2256 [inline]
>  cont_write_begin+0x5fc/0x970 fs/buffer.c:2594
>  fat_write_begin+0x4f/0xe0 fs/fat/inode.c:229
>  cont_expand_zero fs/buffer.c:2522 [inline]
>  cont_write_begin+0x1ad/0x970 fs/buffer.c:2584
>  fat_write_begin+0x4f/0xe0 fs/fat/inode.c:229
>  generic_perform_write+0x184/0x490 mm/filemap.c:4175
>  __generic_file_write_iter+0x9e/0x120 mm/filemap.c:4292
>  generic_file_write_iter+0x8d/0x2f0 mm/filemap.c:4318
>  new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:593 [inline]
>  vfs_write+0x52a/0x960 fs/read_write.c:686
>  ksys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:793 [inline]
>  __do_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:801 [inline]
>  __se_sys_pwrite64 fs/read_write.c:798 [inline]
>  __x64_sys_pwrite64+0xfd/0x150 fs/read_write.c:798
>  x64_sys_call+0xc4d/0x2ff0 arch/x86/include/generated/asm/syscalls_64.h:19
>  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
>  do_syscall_64+0xd2/0x200 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
>
> read to 0xffff888106c95200 of 512 bytes by task 7433 on cpu 0:
>  fat_mirror_bhs+0x1df/0x320 fs/fat/fatent.c:395
>  fat_ent_write+0xd0/0xe0 fs/fat/fatent.c:423
>  fat_free fs/fat/file.c:363 [inline]
>  fat_truncate_blocks+0x353/0x550 fs/fat/file.c:394
>  fat_write_failed fs/fat/inode.c:218 [inline]
>  fat_write_end+0xba/0x160 fs/fat/inode.c:246
>  generic_perform_write+0x312/0x490 mm/filemap.c:4196
>  __generic_file_write_iter+0x9e/0x120 mm/filemap.c:4292
>  generic_file_write_iter+0x8d/0x2f0 mm/filemap.c:4318
>  new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:593 [inline]
>  vfs_write+0x52a/0x960 fs/read_write.c:686
>  ksys_write+0xda/0x1a0 fs/read_write.c:738
>  __do_sys_write fs/read_write.c:749 [inline]
>  __se_sys_write fs/read_write.c:746 [inline]
>  __x64_sys_write+0x40/0x50 fs/read_write.c:746
>  x64_sys_call+0x27fe/0x2ff0 arch/x86/include/generated/asm/syscalls_64.h:2
>  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
>  do_syscall_64+0xd2/0x200 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
>
> Signed-off-by: YangWen <anmuxixixi@gmail.com>
> ---
>  fs/fat/fatent.c | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fat/fatent.c b/fs/fat/fatent.c
> index a7061c2ad8e4..e25775642489 100644
> --- a/fs/fat/fatent.c
> +++ b/fs/fat/fatent.c
> @@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ static int fat_mirror_bhs(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
>  	struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
>  	struct buffer_head *c_bh;
>  	int err, n, copy;
> +	bool is_fat12 = is_fat12(sbi);
>  
>  	err = 0;
>  	for (copy = 1; copy < sbi->fats; copy++) {
> @@ -392,7 +393,17 @@ static int fat_mirror_bhs(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
>  			}
>  			/* Avoid race with userspace read via bdev */
>  			lock_buffer(c_bh);
> +			/*
> +			 * For FAT12, protect memcpy() of the source sector
> +			 * against concurrent 12-bit entry updates in
> +			 * fat12_ent_put(), otherwise we may copy a torn
> +			 * pair of bytes into the mirror FAT.
> +			 */
> +			if (is_fat12)
> +				spin_lock(&fat12_entry_lock);
>  			memcpy(c_bh->b_data, bhs[n]->b_data, sb->s_blocksize);
> +			if (is_fat12)
> +				spin_unlock(&fat12_entry_lock);
>  			set_buffer_uptodate(c_bh);
>  			unlock_buffer(c_bh);
>  			mark_buffer_dirty_inode(c_bh, sbi->fat_inode);

-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: [PATCH] drivers: example: fix memory leak

[YangWen]

Hi,

On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 23:13:42 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Hm, what is wrong with temporary inconsistent?
> 
> If it had the race with future modification, it can be temporary
> inconsistent. However, future modification will fix it by updating with
> latest blocks, right?
> 
> Or did you actually get the inconsistent state after clean unmount?

Thanks for your comment.

This is not only a temporary in-memory inconsistency.  KCSAN detected a
race where fat12_ent_put() updates two bytes of a 12-bit FAT entry while
fat_mirror_bhs() concurrently memcpy()’s the entire sector.  The mirror
FAT may therefore receive a torn entry.

Since fat_mirror_bhs() marks those buffers dirty, the corrupted mirror
content can be flushed to disk.  In our syzkaller testing, this already
resulted in runtime errors such as:

    FAT-fs (loop4): error, clusters badly computed (421 != 418)
    FAT-fs (loop4): error, fat_bmap_cluster: request beyond EOF (i_pos 2075)

These errors occurred even after a clean unmount, which suggests that the
inconsistent FAT entries were actually written to disk and not corrected
later by "future modification".

FAT16/32 do not suffer from this problem because their entries are
naturally aligned 16/32-bit accesses, which are atomic on supported
architectures.  FAT12 is special because of the 12-bit packing across
two bytes.

So I think it is necessary to protect memcpy() in fat_mirror_bhs() with
fat12_entry_lock to avoid copying a torn FAT12 entry.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] drivers: example: fix memory leak

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

YangWen <anmuxixixi@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 23:13:42 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>> Hm, what is wrong with temporary inconsistent?
>> 
>> If it had the race with future modification, it can be temporary
>> inconsistent. However, future modification will fix it by updating with
>> latest blocks, right?
>> 
>> Or did you actually get the inconsistent state after clean unmount?
>
> Thanks for your comment.
>
> This is not only a temporary in-memory inconsistency.  KCSAN detected a
> race where fat12_ent_put() updates two bytes of a 12-bit FAT entry while
> fat_mirror_bhs() concurrently memcpy()’s the entire sector.  The mirror
> FAT may therefore receive a torn entry.
>
> Since fat_mirror_bhs() marks those buffers dirty, the corrupted mirror
> content can be flushed to disk.  In our syzkaller testing, this already
> resulted in runtime errors such as:
>
>     FAT-fs (loop4): error, clusters badly computed (421 != 418)
>     FAT-fs (loop4): error, fat_bmap_cluster: request beyond EOF (i_pos 2075)
>
> These errors occurred even after a clean unmount, which suggests that the
> inconsistent FAT entries were actually written to disk and not corrected
> later by "future modification".
>
> FAT16/32 do not suffer from this problem because their entries are
> naturally aligned 16/32-bit accesses, which are atomic on supported
> architectures.  FAT12 is special because of the 12-bit packing across
> two bytes.
>
> So I think it is necessary to protect memcpy() in fat_mirror_bhs() with
> fat12_entry_lock to avoid copying a torn FAT12 entry.

Sounds like strange. FAT driver never read the mirror FAT area in
runtime. Why did you think the mirror FAT affect to it?

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[YangWen]

Hi,

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Sounds like strange. FAT driver never read the mirror FAT area in
> runtime. Why did you think the mirror FAT affect to it?

Thanks for raising this point.

FAT driver itself never reads the mirror FAT at
runtime, so this race does not directly cause runtime corruption.

However, if the primary FAT on disk becomes damaged, user-space tools
such as fsck_msdos will consult the backup FAT copies in order to
repair it.  In that scenario, keeping the primary and backup FAT copies
consistent is important.  If they diverge due to a race between
fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs(), recovery by fsck_msdos
may become unreliable.

So my intention was not to fix a runtime problem, but rather to prevent
unnecessary inconsistencies between the primary and backup FAT copies,
which can help later recovery tools work as expected.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

YangWen <anmuxixixi@gmail.com> writes:

> OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>> Sounds like strange. FAT driver never read the mirror FAT area in
>> runtime. Why did you think the mirror FAT affect to it?
>
> Thanks for raising this point.
>
> FAT driver itself never reads the mirror FAT at
> runtime, so this race does not directly cause runtime corruption.
>
> However, if the primary FAT on disk becomes damaged, user-space tools
> such as fsck_msdos will consult the backup FAT copies in order to
> repair it.  In that scenario, keeping the primary and backup FAT copies
> consistent is important.  If they diverge due to a race between
> fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs(), recovery by fsck_msdos
> may become unreliable.
>
> So my intention was not to fix a runtime problem, but rather to prevent
> unnecessary inconsistencies between the primary and backup FAT copies,
> which can help later recovery tools work as expected.

You are forgetting what I said first. I said, this should be temporary
inconsistent. When unmount, temporary inconsistent should be fixed by
later write out.

IOW, I can't see why you claim this race can be the cause of permanent
inconsistent.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[YangWen]

Hi,

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> You are forgetting what I said first. I said, this should be temporary
> inconsistent. When unmount, temporary inconsistent should be fixed by
> later write out.
>
> IOW, I can't see why you claim this race can be the cause of permanent
> inconsistent.

I don’t have a reproducer showing a permanent corruption
after a clean unmount. My concern came only from KCSAN reports under
syzkaller, and then I tried to reason from the code.

In particular, in fat_mirror_bhs() there is a path:

    if (sb->s_flags & SB_SYNCHRONOUS)
        err = sync_dirty_buffer(c_bh);

So with -o sync mount, if memcpy() observes a half-updated FAT12 entry,
the torn value in the backup FAT buffer could be immediately written to
disk. In that case, even though the primary FAT is later corrected, the
backup FAT might persist inconsistent content.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[OGAWA Hirofumi]

YangWen <anmuxixixi@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>> You are forgetting what I said first. I said, this should be temporary
>> inconsistent. When unmount, temporary inconsistent should be fixed by
>> later write out.
>>
>> IOW, I can't see why you claim this race can be the cause of permanent
>> inconsistent.
>
> I don’t have a reproducer showing a permanent corruption
> after a clean unmount. My concern came only from KCSAN reports under
> syzkaller, and then I tried to reason from the code.
>
> In particular, in fat_mirror_bhs() there is a path:
>
>     if (sb->s_flags & SB_SYNCHRONOUS)
>         err = sync_dirty_buffer(c_bh);
>
> So with -o sync mount, if memcpy() observes a half-updated FAT12 entry,
> the torn value in the backup FAT buffer could be immediately written to
> disk. In that case, even though the primary FAT is later corrected, the
> backup FAT might persist inconsistent content.

Sync mount doesn't try to keep all of consistency. It is trying to keep
sync the minimum blocks for consistency. The primary should be always
consistent, however this doesn't care much about mirror FAT.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>

Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[YangWen]

Hi,

OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Sync mount doesn't try to keep all of consistency. It is trying to keep
> sync the minimum blocks for consistency. The primary should be always
> consistent, however this doesn't care much about mirror FAT.

Thanks a lot for your explanation. I understand your point and you are
right.I just noticed that in fat_mirror_bhs(), the buffer head "c_bh" actually
represents the mirror FAT blocks, and the code does:

    if (sb->s_flags & SB_SYNCHRONOUS)
        err = sync_dirty_buffer(c_bh);

So on -o sync mounts the mirror FAT blocks are also forced to disk
immediately.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[YangWen]

Hi,

On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 23:13:42 +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Hm, what is wrong with temporary inconsistent?
> 
> If it had the race with future modification, it can be temporary
> inconsistent. However, future modification will fix it by updating with
> latest blocks, right?
> 
> Or did you actually get the inconsistent state after clean unmount?

Thanks for your comment.

This is not only a temporary in-memory inconsistency.  KCSAN detected a
race where fat12_ent_put() updates two bytes of a 12-bit FAT entry while
fat_mirror_bhs() concurrently memcpy()’s the entire sector.  The mirror
FAT may therefore receive a torn entry.

Since fat_mirror_bhs() marks those buffers dirty, the corrupted mirror
content can be flushed to disk.  In our syzkaller testing, this already
resulted in runtime errors such as:

    FAT-fs (loop4): error, clusters badly computed (421 != 418)
    FAT-fs (loop4): error, fat_bmap_cluster: request beyond EOF (i_pos 2075)

These errors occurred even after a clean unmount, which suggests that the
inconsistent FAT entries were actually written to disk and not corrected
later by "future modification".

FAT16/32 do not suffer from this problem because their entries are
naturally aligned 16/32-bit accesses, which are atomic on supported
architectures.  FAT12 is special because of the 12-bit packing across
two bytes.

So I think it is necessary to protect memcpy() in fat_mirror_bhs() with
fat12_entry_lock to avoid copying a torn FAT12 entry.

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()

[kernel test robot]

Hi YangWen,

kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:

[auto build test ERROR on brauner-vfs/vfs.all]
[also build test ERROR on linus/master v6.17-rc4 next-20250902]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]

url:    https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/YangWen/fat-fix-data-race-between-fat12_ent_put-and-fat_mirror_bhs/20250902-162253
base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git vfs.all
patch link:    https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250902081727.7146-1-anmuxixixi%40gmail.com
patch subject: [PATCH] fat: fix data-race between fat12_ent_put() and fat_mirror_bhs()
config: csky-randconfig-002-20250903 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250903/202509030347.6cUT1zxe-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: csky-linux-gcc (GCC) 15.1.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250903/202509030347.6cUT1zxe-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)

If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202509030347.6cUT1zxe-lkp@intel.com/

All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):

   fs/fat/fatent.c: In function 'fat_mirror_bhs':
>> fs/fat/fatent.c:382:25: error: called object 'is_fat12' is not a function or function pointer
     382 |         bool is_fat12 = is_fat12(sbi);
         |                         ^~~~~~~~
   fs/fat/fatent.c:382:14: note: declared here
     382 |         bool is_fat12 = is_fat12(sbi);
         |              ^~~~~~~~


vim +/is_fat12 +382 fs/fat/fatent.c

   374	
   375	/* FIXME: We can write the blocks as more big chunk. */
   376	static int fat_mirror_bhs(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
   377				  int nr_bhs)
   378	{
   379		struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
   380		struct buffer_head *c_bh;
   381		int err, n, copy;
 > 382		bool is_fat12 = is_fat12(sbi);
   383	
   384		err = 0;
   385		for (copy = 1; copy < sbi->fats; copy++) {
   386			sector_t backup_fat = sbi->fat_length * copy;
   387	
   388			for (n = 0; n < nr_bhs; n++) {
   389				c_bh = sb_getblk(sb, backup_fat + bhs[n]->b_blocknr);
   390				if (!c_bh) {
   391					err = -ENOMEM;
   392					goto error;
   393				}
   394				/* Avoid race with userspace read via bdev */
   395				lock_buffer(c_bh);
   396				/*
   397				 * For FAT12, protect memcpy() of the source sector
   398				 * against concurrent 12-bit entry updates in
   399				 * fat12_ent_put(), otherwise we may copy a torn
   400				 * pair of bytes into the mirror FAT.
   401				 */
   402				if (is_fat12)
   403					spin_lock(&fat12_entry_lock);
   404				memcpy(c_bh->b_data, bhs[n]->b_data, sb->s_blocksize);
   405				if (is_fat12)
   406					spin_unlock(&fat12_entry_lock);
   407				set_buffer_uptodate(c_bh);
   408				unlock_buffer(c_bh);
   409				mark_buffer_dirty_inode(c_bh, sbi->fat_inode);
   410				if (sb->s_flags & SB_SYNCHRONOUS)
   411					err = sync_dirty_buffer(c_bh);
   412				brelse(c_bh);
   413				if (err)
   414					goto error;
   415			}
   416		}
   417	error:
   418		return err;
   419	}
   420	

-- 
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki