From: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
To: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH] fs: Fix freeze_bdev()/thaw_bdev() accounting of bd_fsfreeze_sb
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2020 04:49:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201224044954.1349459-1-satyat@google.com> (raw)
freeze/thaw_bdev() currently use bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count to infer
whether or not bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb is valid (it's valid iff
bd_fsfreeze_count is non-zero). thaw_bdev() doesn't nullify
bd_fsfreeze_sb.
But this means a freeze_bdev() call followed by a thaw_bdev() call can
leave bd_fsfreeze_sb with a non-null value, while bd_fsfreeze_count is
zero. If freeze_bdev() is called again, and this time
get_active_super() returns NULL (e.g. because the FS is unmounted),
we'll end up with bd_fsfreeze_count > 0, but bd_fsfreeze_sb is
*untouched* - it stays the same (now garbage) value. A subsequent
thaw_bdev() will decide that the bd_fsfreeze_sb value is legitimate
(since bd_fsfreeze_count > 0), and attempt to use it.
Fix this by always setting bd_fsfreeze_sb to NULL when
bd_fsfreeze_count is successfully decremented to 0 in thaw_sb().
Alternatively, we could set bd_fsfreeze_sb to whatever
get_active_super() returns in freeze_bdev() whenever bd_fsfreeze_count
is successfully incremented to 1 from 0 (which can be achieved cleanly
by moving the line currently setting bd_fsfreeze_sb to immediately
after the "sync:" label, but it might be a little too subtle/easily
overlooked in future).
This fixes the currently panicking xfstests generic/085.
Fixes: 040f04bd2e82 ("fs: simplify freeze_bdev/thaw_bdev")
Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala <satyat@google.com>
---
fs/block_dev.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
index 9e56ee1f2652..12a811a9ae4b 100644
--- a/fs/block_dev.c
+++ b/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -606,6 +606,8 @@ int thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev)
error = thaw_super(sb);
if (error)
bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count++;
+ else
+ bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb = NULL;
out:
mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
return error;
--
2.29.2.729.g45daf8777d-goog
next reply other threads:[~2020-12-24 4:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-24 4:49 Satya Tangirala [this message]
2021-01-04 21:58 ` [PATCH] fs: Fix freeze_bdev()/thaw_bdev() accounting of bd_fsfreeze_sb Darrick J. Wong
2021-01-05 7:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-07 16:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-07 16:26 ` Bob Peterson
2021-01-07 16:26 ` Jens Axboe
2021-01-07 16:27 ` Bob Peterson
2021-01-07 18:20 ` [fs PATCH] fs: fix freeze count problem in freeze_bdev Bob Peterson
2021-01-07 23:08 ` [PATCH] fs: Fix freeze_bdev()/thaw_bdev() accounting of bd_fsfreeze_sb Satya Tangirala
2021-01-08 9:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-01-08 13:17 ` Bob Peterson
2021-01-08 14:58 ` Bob Peterson
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=20201224044954.1349459-1-satyat@google.com \
--to=satyat@google.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@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