From: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
To: Abhinav Duggal <abhinavduggal@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible race in btrfs
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:47:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100324094726.4ba8f77f@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3d81e70e1003232120t14ba6eaw54f73c939bfab391@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 00:20:25 -0400
Abhinav Duggal <abhinavduggal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> It seems like there is a possible race on delalloc_bytes in btrfs in
> kernel 2.6.33.Please examine this issue and let me know if this is a
> problem or not.The race could occur between stat system call and
> writeback kernel thread.
> The lines are
> fs/btrfs/inode.c 5422
> fs/btrfs/inode.c 1378
>
> The stack traces are
>
> For file line fs/btrfs/inode.c 5422
>
> btrfs_getattr+0x141/0x15e
> vfs_getattr+0x47/0xf4
> vfs_fstatat+0x43/0x5a
> vfs_stat+0x16/0x18
> sys_newstat+0x3d/0x75
> system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> And for file line fs/btrfs/inode.c 1378
>
> btrfs_clear_bit_hook+0xcc1/0x10f2
> clear_state_bit+0x4db/0xa89
> clear_extent_bit+0x9e1/0xc86
> extent_clear_unlock_delalloc+0x8c/0x1d8
> cow_file_range+0x1356/0x1432
> run_delalloc_range+0x263/0x1702
> __extent_writepage+0x2c4/0x15a8
> extent_write_cache_pages.clone.0+0x211/0x33d
> extent_writepages+0x243/0x260
> btrfs_writepages+0x87/0x92
> do_writepages+0x1c/0x25
> writeback_single_inode+0xe2/0x24c
> writeback_inodes_wb+0x374/0x48d
> wb_writeback+0x121/0x1f6
> wb_do_writeback+0x147/0x159
> bdi_writeback_task+0x3a/0xaa
> bdi_start_fn+0x63/0xc7
> kthread+0x7a/0x82
> kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>
> The write to delalloc_bytes in the function btrfs_clear_bit_hook is
> protected by the spin_lock delalloc_lock whereas the read is not.The
> write is not atomic so the read could return some old value.
>
> I am not sure what would be the implication of this?Is it ok if stat
> system call returns some value which is not consistent with rest of
> the fields? If not then is it better to make this field as atomic_t?
> I am looking for data races in btrfs and I discovered this using some
> kind of dynamic analysis.
> Thanks a lot.
>
Yeah you could race, but its getattr. We could add the locking, but its a
global lock, and its just to tell the user how big the file is, so its not
terribly important. I think it's worth the tradeoff for a little possible
inaccuracy vs. creating more lock contention. Thanks,
Josef
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-24 13:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-24 4:20 Possible race in btrfs Abhinav Duggal
2010-03-24 13:47 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
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=20100324094726.4ba8f77f@redhat.com \
--to=josef@redhat.com \
--cc=abhinavduggal@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).