public inbox for linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	<adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>, <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <jun.nie@linaro.org>,
	<ebiggers@kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
	<yangerkun@huawei.com>, <yukuai3@huawei.com>,
	<syzbot+a158d886ca08a3fecca4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
	<stable@vger.kernel.org>, Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: fix race condition between buffer write and page_mkwrite
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 20:19:29 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d704ce55-321a-9c1d-1f8b-3360a0fdf978@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230605150855.7oaiplp7r57dcww3@quack3>

On 2023/6/5 23:08, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 05-06-23 15:55:35, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 02:21:41PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Mon 05-06-23 11:16:55, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> Yeah, I agree, that is also the conclusion I have arrived at when thinking
>>>> about this problem now. We should be able to just remove the conversion
>>>> from ext4_page_mkwrite() and rely on write(2) or truncate(2) doing it when
>>>> growing i_size.
>>> OK, thinking more about this and searching through the history, I've
>>> realized why the conversion is originally in ext4_page_mkwrite(). The
>>> problem is described in commit 7b4cc9787fe35b ("ext4: evict inline data
>>> when writing to memory map") but essentially it boils down to the fact that
>>> ext4 writeback code does not expect dirty page for a file with inline data
>>> because ext4_write_inline_data_end() should have copied the data into the
>>> inode and cleared the folio's dirty flag.
>>>
>>> Indeed messing with xattrs from the writeback path to copy page contents
>>> into inline data xattr would be ... interesting. Hum, out of good ideas for
>>> now :-|.
>> Is it so bad?  Now that we don't have writepage in ext4, only
>> writepages, it seems like we have a considerably more benign locking
>> environment to work in.
> Well, yes, without ->writepage() it might be *possible*. But still rather
> ugly. The problem is that in ->writepages() i_size is not stable. Thus also
> whether the inode data is inline or not is not stable. We'd need inode_lock
> for that but that is not easily doable in the writeback path - inode lock
> would then become fs_reclaim unsafe...
>
> 								Honza

If we try to add inode_lock to ext4_writepages to complete the
conversion, there may be a deadlock as follows:

       CPU0             CPU1
writeback_single_inode
  spin_lock(&inode->i_lock) ---> LOCK B
                    enable_verity
                     inode_lock(inode)  ---> LOCK A
                     vops->begin_enable_verity
                     ext4_begin_enable_verity
                      ext4_inode_attach_jinode
                       spin_lock(&inode->i_lock)   ---> try LOCK B
  __writeback_single_inode          |
   do_writepages                ABBA deadlock
    ext4_writepages                 |
     inode_lock(inode)  ---> try LOCK A

If we add inode_lock to the write back process to complete the inline 
conversion,
it seems that we still have to add an ops ...

I've been going over this problem for a long time, but I can't think of 
a good way
to solve it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-06-06 12:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-30 13:44 [PATCH v2] ext4: fix race condition between buffer write and page_mkwrite Baokun Li
2023-05-31 13:15 ` Jan Kara
2023-06-04  3:04 ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-06-04 21:08   ` Theodore Ts'o
2023-06-05  1:58     ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-06-05  9:16       ` Jan Kara
2023-06-05 12:21         ` Jan Kara
2023-06-05 14:55           ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-06-05 15:08             ` Jan Kara
2023-06-06 12:19               ` Baokun Li [this message]
2024-04-15  4:28               ` Baokun Li
2024-04-15 12:34                 ` Jan Kara
2024-04-15 14:07                   ` Baokun Li
2023-06-05  2:17   ` Baokun Li

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=d704ce55-321a-9c1d-1f8b-3360a0fdf978@huawei.com \
    --to=libaokun1@huawei.com \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jun.nie@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=syzbot+a158d886ca08a3fecca4@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
    --cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
    --cc=yukuai3@huawei.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