Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:33:39AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> 
> We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:
> 
> In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
> writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
> and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!
> 
> We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating last_trans_commited
> with tree_log_mutex.
> 
> Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
> 	v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
> 	v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
>  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> @@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>  	}
>  
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>  	mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>  	dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
>  	if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
> @@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>  	atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
>  	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
> +	 * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
> +	 * when updating last_trans_commited.
> +	 */
>  	if (!is_dev_replace) {
> -		/*
> -		 * by holding device list mutex, we can
> -		 * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
> -		 */
>  		ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
>  	}
>  	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);

IIRC, we already have btrfs_scrub_{pause, continue}() to avoid race
situations between committing transaction and scrub processes, why not use that
instead?

(Actually I don't like adding another lock unless it's been proved necessary
and correct with lockdep.)

thanks,
-liubo

>  
>  	if (!ret)
>  		ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> @@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>  		goto cleanup_transaction;
>  	}
>  
> +	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
> +	 * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
> +	 * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
> +	 * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
> +	 */
> +	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
>  	 * to go about their business
>  	 */
>  	mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>  
> -	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
> -
> -	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>  	/*
>  	 * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
>  	 * which can change it.
> -- 
> 1.8.4
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html