From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1391C31E46 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:57:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7461820684 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:57:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2436724AbfFLH5x (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 03:57:53 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40412 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2436640AbfFLH5x (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jun 2019 03:57:53 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE245ADC1 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 07:57:51 +0000 (UTC) From: Qu Wenruo To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: Nikolay Borisov Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: qgroup: Don't hold qgroup_ioctl_lock in btrfs_qgroup_inherit() Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:57:45 +0800 Message-Id: <20190612075745.25024-1-wqu@suse.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.22.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org [BUG] Lockdep will report the following circular locking dependency: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.2.0-rc2-custom #24 Tainted: G O ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs/8631 is trying to acquire lock: 000000002536438c (&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock#2){+.+.}, at: btrfs_qgroup_inherit+0x40/0x620 [btrfs] but task is already holding lock: 000000003d52cc23 (&fs_info->tree_log_mutex){+.+.}, at: create_pending_snapshot+0x8b6/0xe60 [btrfs] which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (&fs_info->tree_log_mutex){+.+.}: __mutex_lock+0x76/0x940 mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x475/0xa00 [btrfs] btrfs_commit_super+0x71/0x80 [btrfs] close_ctree+0x2bd/0x320 [btrfs] btrfs_put_super+0x15/0x20 [btrfs] generic_shutdown_super+0x72/0x110 kill_anon_super+0x18/0x30 btrfs_kill_super+0x16/0xa0 [btrfs] deactivate_locked_super+0x3a/0x80 deactivate_super+0x51/0x60 cleanup_mnt+0x3f/0x80 __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20 task_work_run+0x94/0xb0 exit_to_usermode_loop+0xd8/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0x210/0x240 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe -> #1 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}: __mutex_lock+0x76/0x940 mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x40d/0xa00 [btrfs] btrfs_quota_enable+0x2da/0x730 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0x2691/0x2b40 [btrfs] do_vfs_ioctl+0xa9/0x6d0 ksys_ioctl+0x67/0x90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x1a/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x65/0x240 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe -> #0 (&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock#2){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xa7/0x190 __mutex_lock+0x76/0x940 mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 btrfs_qgroup_inherit+0x40/0x620 [btrfs] create_pending_snapshot+0x9d7/0xe60 [btrfs] create_pending_snapshots+0x94/0xb0 [btrfs] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x415/0xa00 [btrfs] btrfs_mksubvol+0x496/0x4e0 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_transid+0x174/0x180 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0x11c/0x180 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0xa90/0x2b40 [btrfs] do_vfs_ioctl+0xa9/0x6d0 ksys_ioctl+0x67/0x90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x1a/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x65/0x240 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock#2 --> &fs_info->reloc_mutex --> &fs_info->tree_log_mutex Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex); lock(&fs_info->reloc_mutex); lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex); lock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock#2); *** DEADLOCK *** 6 locks held by btrfs/8631: #0: 00000000ed8f23f6 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}, at: mnt_want_write_file+0x28/0x60 #1: 000000009fb1597a (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#10/1){+.+.}, at: btrfs_mksubvol+0x70/0x4e0 [btrfs] #2: 0000000088c5ad88 (&fs_info->subvol_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_mksubvol+0x128/0x4e0 [btrfs] #3: 000000009606fc3e (sb_internal#2){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x37a/0x520 [btrfs] #4: 00000000f82bbdf5 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}, at: btrfs_commit_transaction+0x40d/0xa00 [btrfs] #5: 000000003d52cc23 (&fs_info->tree_log_mutex){+.+.}, at: create_pending_snapshot+0x8b6/0xe60 [btrfs] [CAUSE] Due to the delayed subvolume creation, we need to call btrfs_qgroup_inherit() inside commit transaction code, with a lot of other mutex hold. This hell of lock chain can lead to above problem. [FIX] On the other hand, we don't really need to hold qgroup_ioctl_lock if we're in the context of create_pending_snapshot(). As in that context, we're the only one being able to modify qgroup. All other qgroup functions which needs qgroup_ioctl_lock are either holding a transaction handle, or will start a new transaction: Functions will start a new transaction(): * btrfs_quota_enable() * btrfs_quota_disable() Functions hold a transaction handler: * btrfs_add_qgroup_relation() * btrfs_del_qgroup_relation() * btrfs_create_qgroup() * btrfs_remove_qgroup() * btrfs_limit_qgroup() * btrfs_qgroup_inherit() call inside create_subvol() So we have a higher level protection provided by transaction, thus we don't need to always hold qgroup_ioctl_lock in btrfs_qgroup_inherit(). Only the btrfs_qgroup_inherit() call in create_subvol() needs to hold qgroup_ioctl_lock, while the btrfs_qgroup_inherit() call in create_pending_snapshot() is already protected by transaction. So the fix is to manually hold qgroup_ioctl_lock inside create_subvol() while skip the lock inside create_pending_snapshot. Reported-by: Nikolay Borisov Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 2 ++ fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 9 +++++++-- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c index 6dafa857bbb9..5a526f38b446 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c @@ -618,7 +618,9 @@ static noinline int create_subvol(struct inode *dir, trans->block_rsv = &block_rsv; trans->bytes_reserved = block_rsv.size; + mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock); ret = btrfs_qgroup_inherit(trans, 0, objectid, inherit); + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock); if (ret) goto fail; diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c index 3e6ffbbd8b0a..26485a73911a 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c @@ -2607,6 +2607,13 @@ int btrfs_run_qgroups(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans) * when a snapshot or a subvolume is created. Throwing an error will * cause a transaction abort so we take extra care here to only error * when a readonly fs is a reasonable outcome. + * + * NOTE: Caller outside of commit transaction code should hold + * qgroup_ioctl_lock. + * For caller inside commit transaction, all other qgroup code will be + * blocked by transaction, thus no need to hold that mutex. This will + * avoid complex lock chain in commit transaction context and make lockdep + * happier. */ int btrfs_qgroup_inherit(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 srcid, u64 objectid, struct btrfs_qgroup_inherit *inherit) @@ -2621,7 +2628,6 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_inherit(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 srcid, u32 level_size = 0; u64 nums; - mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock); if (!test_bit(BTRFS_FS_QUOTA_ENABLED, &fs_info->flags)) goto out; @@ -2785,7 +2791,6 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_inherit(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 srcid, unlock: spin_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock); out: - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock); return ret; } -- 2.22.0