From: Moritz Tanner <moritz.tanner@linbit.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Moritz Tanner <moritz.tanner@linbit.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] fs: don't return -EINVAL for successful nested thaw
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 10:54:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260821085451.65206-1-moritz.tanner@linbit.com> (raw)
Commit 7366f8b6fc6a ("fs: handle freezing from multiple devices")
replaced the freeze_holders bitmask with per-holder counters to allow
nested freezes. In the bitmask version, a thaw that released a shared
hold while another holder remained returned 0. Since the rework,
thaw_super_locked() drops the freeze reference via freeze_dec() but
then returns -EINVAL when other freezers remain, misinforming the
caller: the thaw did succeed, the superblock just stays frozen for the
remaining holders.
This breaks bdev-initiated freezing. When a filesystem is frozen with
FIFREEZE and additionally frozen via bdev_freeze() -- which nests by
design, see fs_bdev_freeze() -- the subsequent bdev_thaw() receives
-EINVAL from the holder op although its freeze reference was dropped,
and therefore keeps bd_fsfreeze_count elevated. Then device-mapper's
unlock_fs() ignores bdev_thaw()'s return value, so nothing rebalances
the count. After the user's FITHAW and umount, the block device can
never be mounted again:
dm-1: Can't mount, blockdev is frozen
There is no way for userspace to drop the leaked count; only
destroying the block device (or a reboot) recovers the device.
Reproducer (any kernel since v6.8):
dmsetup create dut --table "0 $(blockdev --getsz "$DEV") linear $DEV 0"
mkfs.ext4 /dev/mapper/dut
mount /dev/mapper/dut /mnt
fsfreeze --freeze /mnt # freeze_ucount == 1
dmsetup suspend dut # bd_fsfreeze_count == 1, ucount == 2
dmsetup resume dut # ucount 2 -> 1, but thaw_super()
# returns -EINVAL, so bdev_thaw()
# keeps bd_fsfreeze_count at 1
fsfreeze --unfreeze /mnt # filesystem thaws fine
umount /mnt
mount /dev/mapper/dut /mnt # EBUSY, forever
The same happens with fsfreeze held across an LVM snapshot of the
origin volume.
fs_bdev_thaw()'s documentation already describes the intended
semantics: "If this function returns zero it doesn't mean that the
filesystem is unfrozen as it may have been frozen multiple times".
Restore them by returning 0 when a nested thaw drops its hold while
other freezers remain. Thawing without holding a freeze still fails
with -EINVAL as may_unfreeze() rejects that case before the reference
count is touched.
Fixes: 7366f8b6fc6a ("fs: handle freezing from multiple devices")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # needs adjustments for < 6.17 (no may_unfreeze())
Signed-off-by: Moritz Tanner <moritz.tanner@linbit.com>
---
fs/super.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 05e443173038..01db6124e409 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -2369,11 +2369,14 @@ static int thaw_super_locked(struct super_block *sb, enum freeze_holder who,
goto out_unlock;
/*
- * All freezers share a single active reference.
- * So just unlock in case there are any left.
+ * All freezers share a single active reference. If other freezers
+ * remain, drop our hold and report success; the superblock stays
+ * frozen until the last holder thaws it.
*/
- if (freeze_dec(sb, who))
+ if (freeze_dec(sb, who)) {
+ error = 0;
goto out_unlock;
+ }
if (sb_rdonly(sb)) {
sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_UNFROZEN;
--
2.55.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-08-21 8:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-21 8:54 Moritz Tanner [this message]
2026-08-21 9:47 ` [PATCH] fs: don't return -EINVAL for successful nested thaw Lars Ellenberg
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=20260821085451.65206-1-moritz.tanner@linbit.com \
--to=moritz.tanner@linbit.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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