Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix incorrect i_nlink caused by inode racing

Long Li
2022-11-15T14:12:56Z

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:23:13AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 09:34:17PM +0800, Long Li wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 07:52:50AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 10:36:48PM +0800, Long Li wrote:
> > > > The following error occurred during the fsstress test:
> > > >
> > > > XFS: Assertion failed: VFS_I(ip)->i_nlink >= 2, file: fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c, line: 2925
> > > >
> > > > The problem was that inode race condition causes incorrect i_nlink to be
> > > > written to disk, and then it is read into memory. Consider the following
> > > > call graph, inodes that are marked as both XFS_IFLUSHING and
> > > > XFS_IRECLAIMABLE, i_nlink will be reset to 1 and then restored to original
> > > > value in xfs_reinit_inode(). Therefore, the i_nlink of directory on disk
> > > > may be set to 1.
> > > >
> > > > xfsaild
> > > > xfs_inode_item_push
> > > > xfs_iflush_cluster
> > > > xfs_iflush
> > > > xfs_inode_to_disk
> > > >
> > > > xfs_iget
> > > > xfs_iget_cache_hit
> > > > xfs_iget_recycle
> > > > xfs_reinit_inode
> > > > inode_init_always
> > > >
> > > > So skip inodes that being flushed and markded as XFS_IRECLAIMABLE, prevent
> > > > concurrent read and write to inodes.
> > >
> > > urk.
> > >
> > > xfs_reinit_inode() needs to hold the ILOCK_EXCL as it is changing
> > > internal inode state and can race with other RCU protected inode
> > > lookups. Have a look at what xfs_iflush_cluster() does - it
> > > grabs the ILOCK_SHARED while under rcu + ip->i_flags_lock, and so
> > > xfs_iflush/xfs_inode_to_disk() are protected from racing inode
> > > updates (during transactions) by that lock.
> > >
> > > Hence it looks to me that I_FLUSHING isn't the problem here - it's
> > > that we have a transient modified inode state in xfs_reinit_inode()
> > > that is externally visisble...
> >
> > Before xfs_reinit_inode(), XFS_IRECLAIM will be set in ip->i_flags, this
> > looks like can prevent race with other RCU protected inode lookups.
>
> That only protects against new lookups - it does not protect against the
> IRECLAIM flag being set *after* the lookup in xfs_iflush_cluster()
> whilst the inode is being flushed to the cluster buffer. That's why
> xfs_iflush_cluster() does:
>
> rcu_read_lock()
> lookup inode
> spinlock(ip->i_flags_lock);
> check IRECLAIM|IFLUSHING
> >>>>>> xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED) <<<<<<<<
> set IFLUSHING
> spin_unlock(ip->i_flags_lock)
> rcu_read_unlock()
>
> At this point, the only lock that is held is XFS_ILOCK_SHARED, and
> it's the only lock that protects the inode state outside the lookup
> scope against concurrent changes.
>
> Essentially, xfs_reinit_inode() needs to add a:
>
> xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)
>
> before it set IRECLAIM - if it fails to get the ILOCK_EXCL, then we
> need to skip the inode, drop out of RCU scope, delay and retry the
> lookup.
>
> > Can it be considered that don't modifying the information about the on-disk
> > values in the VFS inode in xfs_reinit_inode()? if so lock can be avoided.
>
> We have to reinit the VFS inode because it has gone through
> ->destroy_inode and so the state has been trashed. We have to bring
> it back as an I_NEW inode, which requires reinitialising everything.
> THe issue is that we store inode state information (like nlink) in
> the VFS inode instead of the XFS inode portion of the structure (to
> minimise memory footprint), and that means xfs_reinit_inode() has a
> transient state where the VFS inode is not correct. We can avoid
> that simply by holding the XFS_ILOCK_EXCL, guaranteeing nothing in
> XFS should be trying to read/modify the internal metadata state
> while we are reinitialising the VFS inode portion of the
> structure...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com

Thanks for the detailed and clear explanation, holding ILOCK_EXCL lock
in xfs_reinit_inode() can solve the problem simply, I will resend a
patch. :)

Thanks,
Long Li