Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: move the chunk_mutex in btrfs_read_chunk_tree

Anand Jain
2020-07-20T07:25:40Z

On 18/7/20 3:12 am, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We are currently getting this lockdep splat
>
> ======================================================
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 5.8.0-rc5+ #20 Tainted: G E
> ------------------------------------------------------
> mount/678048 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff9b769f15b6e0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff9b76abdb08d0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x6a/0x800 [btrfs]
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0
> btrfs_init_new_device+0x2d2/0x1240 [btrfs]
> btrfs_ioctl+0x1de/0x2d20 [btrfs]
> ksys_ioctl+0x87/0xc0
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
> do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>
> -> #0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1240/0x2460
> lock_acquire+0xab/0x360
> __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0
> clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
> btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x330/0x800 [btrfs]
> open_ctree+0xb7c/0x18ce [btrfs]
> btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x13/0xfa [btrfs]
> legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
> vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
> fc_mount+0xe/0x40
> vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0x90
> btrfs_mount+0x13b/0x3e0 [btrfs]
> legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
> vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
> do_mount+0x7de/0xb30
> __x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0
> do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
> lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 3 locks held by mount/678048:
> #0: ffff9b75ff5fb0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#63/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: alloc_super+0xb5/0x380
> #1: ffffffffc0c2fbc8 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x54/0x800 [btrfs]
> #2: ffff9b76abdb08d0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x6a/0x800 [btrfs]
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 2 PID: 678048 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 5.8.0-rc5+ #20
> Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M./890FX Deluxe5, BIOS P1.40 05/03/2011
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x96/0xd0
> check_noncircular+0x162/0x180
> __lock_acquire+0x1240/0x2460
> ? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
> lock_acquire+0xab/0x360
> ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
> __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0
> ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
> ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60
> ? cpumask_next+0x16/0x20
> ? module_assert_mutex_or_preempt+0x14/0x40
> ? __module_address+0x28/0xf0
> ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
> ? static_obj+0x4f/0x60
> ? lockdep_init_map_waits+0x43/0x200
> ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
> clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
> btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x330/0x800 [btrfs]
> open_ctree+0xb7c/0x18ce [btrfs]
> ? super_setup_bdi_name+0x79/0xd0
> btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x13/0xfa [btrfs]
> ? vfs_parse_fs_string+0x84/0xb0
> ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60
> ? kfree+0x2b5/0x310
> legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
> vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
> fc_mount+0xe/0x40
> vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0x90
> btrfs_mount+0x13b/0x3e0 [btrfs]
> ? cred_has_capability+0x7c/0x120
> ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60
> ? legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
> legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
> vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
> do_mount+0x7de/0xb30
> ? memdup_user+0x4e/0x90
> __x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0
> do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>
> This is because btrfs_read_chunk_tree() can come upon DEV_EXTENT's and
> then read the device, which takes the device_list_mutex. The
> device_list_mutex needs to be taken before the chunk_mutex, so this is a
> problem. We only really need the chunk mutex around adding the chunk,
> so move the mutex around read_one_chunk.
>
> An argument could be made that we don't even need the chunk_mutex here
> as it's during mount, and we are protected by various other locks.
> However we already have special rules for ->device_list_mutex, and I'd
> rather not have another special case for ->chunk_mutex.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>

Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>

Thanks, Anand