public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Subject: [PATCH] xfs: recheck appropriateness of map_shared lock
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:24:58 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y8ib6ls32e/pJezE@magnolia> (raw)

From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>

While fuzzing the data fork extent count on a btree-format directory
with xfs/375, I observed the following (excerpted) splat:

XFS: Assertion failed: xfs_isilocked(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL), file: fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c, line: 1208
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 43192 at fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:104 assfail+0x46/0x4a [xfs]
Call Trace:
 <TASK>
 xfs_iread_extents+0x1af/0x210 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 xchk_dir_walk+0xb8/0x190 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 xchk_parent_count_parent_dentries+0x41/0x80 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 xchk_parent_validate+0x199/0x2e0 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 xchk_parent+0xdf/0x130 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 xfs_scrub_metadata+0x2b8/0x730 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 xfs_scrubv_metadata+0x38b/0x4d0 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 xfs_ioc_scrubv_metadata+0x111/0x160 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 xfs_file_ioctl+0x367/0xf50 [xfs 09f66509ece4938760fac7de64732a0cbd3e39cd]
 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x82/0xa0
 do_syscall_64+0x2b/0x80
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0

The cause of this is a race condition in xfs_ilock_data_map_shared,
which performs an unlocked access to the data fork to guess which lock
mode it needs:

Thread 0                          Thread 1

xfs_need_iread_extents
<observe no iext tree>
xfs_ilock(..., ILOCK_EXCL)
xfs_iread_extents
<observe no iext tree>
<check ILOCK_EXCL>
<load bmbt extents into iext>
<notice iext size doesn't
 match nextents>
                                  xfs_need_iread_extents
                                  <observe iext tree>
                                  xfs_ilock(..., ILOCK_SHARED)
<tear down iext tree>
xfs_iunlock(..., ILOCK_EXCL)
                                  xfs_iread_extents
                                  <observe no iext tree>
                                  <check ILOCK_EXCL>
                                  *BOOM*

mitigate this race by having thread 1 to recheck xfs_need_iread_extents
after taking the shared ILOCK.  If the iext tree isn't present, then we
need to upgrade to the exclusive ILOCK to try to load the bmbt.

Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
---
 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c |   29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
index d354ea2b74f9..6ce1e0e9f256 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
@@ -117,6 +117,20 @@ xfs_ilock_data_map_shared(
 	if (xfs_need_iread_extents(&ip->i_df))
 		lock_mode = XFS_ILOCK_EXCL;
 	xfs_ilock(ip, lock_mode);
+
+	/*
+	 * It's possible that the unlocked access of the data fork to determine
+	 * the lock mode could have raced with another thread that was failing
+	 * to load the bmbt but hadn't yet torn down the iext tree.  Recheck
+	 * the lock mode and upgrade to an exclusive lock if we need to.
+	 */
+	if (lock_mode == XFS_ILOCK_SHARED &&
+	    xfs_need_iread_extents(&ip->i_df)) {
+		xfs_iunlock(ip, lock_mode);
+		lock_mode = XFS_ILOCK_EXCL;
+		xfs_ilock(ip, lock_mode);
+	}
+
 	return lock_mode;
 }
 
@@ -129,6 +143,21 @@ xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared(
 	if (xfs_inode_has_attr_fork(ip) && xfs_need_iread_extents(&ip->i_af))
 		lock_mode = XFS_ILOCK_EXCL;
 	xfs_ilock(ip, lock_mode);
+
+	/*
+	 * It's possible that the unlocked access of the attr fork to determine
+	 * the lock mode could have raced with another thread that was failing
+	 * to load the bmbt but hadn't yet torn down the iext tree.  Recheck
+	 * the lock mode and upgrade to an exclusive lock if we need to.
+	 */
+	if (lock_mode == XFS_ILOCK_SHARED &&
+	    xfs_inode_has_attr_fork(ip) &&
+	    xfs_need_iread_extents(&ip->i_af)) {
+		xfs_iunlock(ip, lock_mode);
+		lock_mode = XFS_ILOCK_EXCL;
+		xfs_ilock(ip, lock_mode);
+	}
+
 	return lock_mode;
 }
 

             reply	other threads:[~2023-01-19  1:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-19  1:24 Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2023-01-19  5:14 ` [PATCH] xfs: recheck appropriateness of map_shared lock Dave Chinner
2023-01-19 18:39   ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-01-19 20:34     ` Dave Chinner
2023-02-28 20:08   ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-01-19 18:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-11  1:05   ` Darrick J. Wong

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=Y8ib6ls32e/pJezE@magnolia \
    --to=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /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