Re: [PATCH] btrfs: wait for ordered extents before buffered write fallback in direct IO

["Zhou, Yun" <yun.zhou@windriver.com>]

On 6/25/26 13:17, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 在 2026/6/25 14:43, Qu Wenruo 写道:
>>
>>
>> 在 2026/6/25 11:44, Yun Zhou 写道:
>>> When btrfs_direct_write() falls back to buffered IO after a failed DIO
>>> attempt, it may race with the asynchronous completion of DIO ordered
>>> extents.  This leads to a BUG_ON in insert_ordered_extent() due to
>>> overlapping ordered extents in the per-inode rb-tree.
>>>
>>> The race sequence is:
>>>   1. DIO creates an ordered extent via btrfs_dio_iomap_begin()
>>>   2. Page fault occurs (nofault=true), no bio is submitted (submitted=0)
>>>   3. btrfs_dio_iomap_end() truncates and finishes the OE asynchronously
>>>      via btrfs_finish_ordered_extent() which queues work
>>>   4. iomap returns 0, retry logic faults in pages and retries DIO
>>>   5. Second DIO attempt also fails, code reaches buffered: label
>>>   6. btrfs_buffered_write() dirties pages for the same range
>>
>> btrfs_buffered_write()
>> |- copy_one_range()
>>     |- lock_and_cleanup_extent_if_needed()
>>        |- btrfs_start_ordered_extent()
>>
>> So your explanation doesn't makes sense. As if there is the direct IO oe
>> remaining, we will wait for that OE to complete.
>>
>> There is still something missing.
>>
>>>   7. btrfs_fdatawrite_range() triggers writeback
>>>   8. run_delalloc_nocow() -> fallback_to_cow() -> cow_file_range()
>>>      tries to insert a new ordered extent for the same file offset
>>>   9. The DIO ordered extent hasn't been removed from the rb-tree yet
>>>      (btrfs_finish_ordered_io running async in workqueue) -> BUG_ON
>>>
>>> Fix this by waiting for any pending ordered extents in the target range
>>> before starting the buffered write.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+ba2afde329fc27e3f22e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ba2afde329fc27e3f22e
>>> Fixes: acf9ed3a6c00 ("btrfs: retry faulting in the pages after a zero
>>> sized short direct write")
> 
> And the fixes tag is also incorrect.
> 
> Without that commit, we will directly fallback to buffered write without
> retry faulting in the pages.
> 
> So by your explanation it will trigger the same problem, with or without
> that commit.

Yes, my previous analysis does seem inaccurate. Commit acf9ed3a6c00 (which
added retries) merely amplified the window for the issue to occur, but 
the problem has actually existed since ff66fe666233 ('btrfs: fix 
incorrect buffered IO fallback for append direct writes'), which 
introduced i_size revert on DIO short writes, causing 
lock_and_cleanup_extent_if_need() to skip the OE check (since start_pos 
 >= reverted i_size). I will correct the commit message and the Fixes 
tag in v2.

Thanks,
Yun