From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
To: dsterba@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: fixes for relocation to avoid KASAN reports
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 17:37:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9cc840ed-d23c-4760-9a2a-da5e3e0deced@gmx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200103161556.GB3929@twin.jikos.cz>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4060 bytes --]
On 2020/1/4 上午12:15, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 04:52:59PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
>> So it's one bit vs refcount and a lock. For the backports I'd go with
>> the bit, but this needs the barriers as mentioned in my previous reply.
>> Can you please update the patches?
>
> The idea is in the diff below (compile tested only). I found one more
> case that was not addressed by your patches, it's in
> btrfs_update_reloc_root.
But fix in btrfs_update_reloc_root() is already included in commit
d2311e698578 ("btrfs: relocation: Delay reloc tree deletion after
merge_reloc_roots").
Or would you mind to share more details about the missing check?
>
> Given that the type of the fix is the same, I'd rather do that in one
> patch. The reported stack traces are more or less the same.
To merge them into patch set is no problem, and should make backports a
little easier.
But I still didn't understand the barrier part.
If we're relying on that bit operation before accessing reloc_root, it
should be safe enough, even without memory barrier.
Would you please explain a little more?
Thanks,
Qu
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
> index af4dd49a71c7..aeba3a7506e1 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
> @@ -517,6 +517,15 @@ static int update_backref_cache(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> return 1;
> }
>
> +static bool have_reloc_root(struct btrfs_root *root)
> +{
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> + if (test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_DEAD_RELOC_TREE, &root->state))
> + return false;
> + if (!root->reloc_root)
> + return false;
> + return true;
> +}
>
> static int should_ignore_root(struct btrfs_root *root)
> {
> @@ -525,9 +534,9 @@ static int should_ignore_root(struct btrfs_root *root)
> if (!test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_REF_COWS, &root->state))
> return 0;
>
> - reloc_root = root->reloc_root;
> - if (!reloc_root)
> + if (!have_reloc_root(root))
> return 0;
> + reloc_root = root->reloc_root;
>
> if (btrfs_root_last_snapshot(&reloc_root->root_item) ==
> root->fs_info->running_transaction->transid - 1)
> @@ -1439,6 +1448,7 @@ int btrfs_init_reloc_root(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> * The subvolume has reloc tree but the swap is finished, no need to
> * create/update the dead reloc tree
> */
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> if (test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_DEAD_RELOC_TREE, &root->state))
> return 0;
>
> @@ -1478,8 +1488,7 @@ int btrfs_update_reloc_root(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> struct btrfs_root_item *root_item;
> int ret;
>
> - if (test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_DEAD_RELOC_TREE, &root->state) ||
> - !root->reloc_root)
> + if (!have_reloc_root(root))
> goto out;
>
> reloc_root = root->reloc_root;
> @@ -1489,6 +1498,7 @@ int btrfs_update_reloc_root(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> if (fs_info->reloc_ctl->merge_reloc_tree &&
> btrfs_root_refs(root_item) == 0) {
> set_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_DEAD_RELOC_TREE, &root->state);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
> __del_reloc_root(reloc_root);
> }
>
> @@ -2201,6 +2211,7 @@ static int clean_dirty_subvols(struct reloc_control *rc)
> if (ret2 < 0 && !ret)
> ret = ret2;
> }
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> clear_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_DEAD_RELOC_TREE, &root->state);
> btrfs_put_fs_root(root);
> } else {
> @@ -4730,7 +4741,7 @@ void btrfs_reloc_pre_snapshot(struct btrfs_pending_snapshot *pending,
> struct btrfs_root *root = pending->root;
> struct reloc_control *rc = root->fs_info->reloc_ctl;
>
> - if (!root->reloc_root || !rc)
> + if (!rc || !have_reloc_root(root))
> return;
>
> if (!rc->merge_reloc_tree)
> @@ -4764,7 +4775,7 @@ int btrfs_reloc_post_snapshot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> struct reloc_control *rc = root->fs_info->reloc_ctl;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!root->reloc_root || !rc)
> + if (!rc || !have_reloc_root(root))
> return 0;
>
> rc = root->fs_info->reloc_ctl;
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-04 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-11 5:00 [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: fixes for relocation to avoid KASAN reports Qu Wenruo
2019-12-11 5:00 ` [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: relocation: Fix a KASAN use-after-free bug due to extended reloc tree lifespan Qu Wenruo
2019-12-11 14:53 ` Josef Bacik
2019-12-11 5:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: relocation: Fix KASAN report on create_reloc_tree due to extended reloc tree lifepsan Qu Wenruo
2019-12-11 14:55 ` Josef Bacik
2019-12-11 15:15 ` David Sterba
2019-12-11 5:00 ` [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: relocation: Fix a KASAN report on btrfs_reloc_pre_snapshot() due to extended reloc root lifespan Qu Wenruo
2019-12-11 14:55 ` Josef Bacik
2019-12-11 15:34 ` [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: fixes for relocation to avoid KASAN reports David Sterba
2019-12-12 0:39 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-12-12 14:28 ` David Sterba
2020-01-03 15:52 ` David Sterba
2020-01-03 16:15 ` David Sterba
2020-01-04 9:37 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2020-01-04 13:18 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-01-06 7:04 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-01-06 18:23 ` David Sterba
2020-01-04 1:32 ` Qu Wenruo
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=9cc840ed-d23c-4760-9a2a-da5e3e0deced@gmx.com \
--to=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
/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