Re: 3.0-rcX BUG at fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:432 - bisected

Jim Schutt
2011-06-10T19:29:45Z

Sage Weil wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On 06/10/2011 02:35 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>>> On 06/10/2011 02:14 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Sage Weil wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Chris Mason wrote:
>>>>>>> Excerpts from Jim Schutt's message of 2011-06-10 13:06:22 -0400:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ two different btrfs crashes ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think your two crashes in btrfs were from the uninit variables and
>>>>>>> those should be fixed in rc2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I did my bisection, my criteria for success/failure was
>>>>>>>> "did mkcephfs succeed?". When I apply this criteria to a recent
>>>>>>>> linus kernel (e.g. 06e86849cf4019), which includes the fix you
>>>>>>>> mentioned (aa0467d8d2a00e), I get still a different failure mode,
>>>>>>>> which doesn't actually reference btrfs:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ 276.364178] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000000000000000a
>>>>>>>> [ 276.365127] IP: [<ffffffffa05434b1>] journal_start+0x3e/0x9c [jbd]
>>>>>>> Looking at the resulting code in the oops, we're here in journal_start:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (handle) {
>>>>>>> J_ASSERT(handle->h_transaction->t_journal == journal);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> handle comes from current->journal_info, and we're doing a deref on
>>>>>>> handle->h_transaction, which is probably 0xa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, we're leaving crud in current->journal_info and ext3 is finding it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps its from ceph starting a transaction but leaving it running?
>>>>>>> The bug came with Josef's transaction performance fixes, but it is
>>>>>>> probably a mixture of his code with the ioctls ceph is using.
>>>>>> Ah, yeah, that's the problem. We saw a similar problem a while back with
>>>>>> the start/stop transaction ioctls. In this case, create_snapshot is doing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root->fs_info->extent_root, 5);
>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
>>>>>> ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
>>>>>> goto fail;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> which sets current->journal_info. Then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ret = btrfs_snap_reserve_metadata(trans, pending_snapshot);
>>>>>> BUG_ON(ret);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> list_add(&pending_snapshot->list,
>>>>>> &trans->transaction->pending_snapshots);
>>>>>> if (async_transid) {
>>>>>> *async_transid = trans->transid;
>>>>>> ret = btrfs_commit_transaction_async(trans,
>>>>>> root->fs_info->extent_root, 1);
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>> ret = btrfs_commit_transaction(trans,
>>>>>> root->fs_info->extent_root);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but the async snap creation ioctl takes the async path, which runs
>>>>>> btrfs_commit_transaction in a worker thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here is... can whatever is in
>>>>>> journal_info be attached to trans instead in
>>>>>> btrfs_commit_transaction_async()?
>>>>> It looks like it's not used for anything in btrfs, actually; it's just set
>>>>> and cleared. What's the point of that?
>>>>>
>>>> It is used now, check the beginning of start_transaction(). Thanks,
>>> Oh I see, okay.
>>>
>>> So clearing it in btrfs_commit_transaction_async should be fine then,
>>> right? When btrfs_commit_transaction runs in the other thread it won't
>>> care that current->journal_info is NULL.
>>>
>> Oh yeah your patch is good :),
>
> Okay cool. Here's the fix with a proper changelog and a little
> use-after-free paranoia.

This patch solves my issue - thanks a lot.

Tested-by: Jim Schutt <jaschut@sandia.gov>

-- Jim

>
> Thanks!
> sage
>
>
>>From 9881c0752293769d5133c01dff3ab04c0c24c61b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:41:25 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs: clear current->journal_info on async transaction commit
>
> Normally current->jouranl_info is cleared by commit_transaction. For an
> async snap or subvol creation, though, it runs in a work queue. Clear
> it in btrfs_commit_transaction_async() to avoid leaking a non-NULL
> journal_info when we return to userspace. When the actual commit runs in
> the other thread it won't care that it's current->journal_info is already
> NULL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> index dd71966..9d516ed 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> @@ -1118,8 +1118,11 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction_async(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> wait_current_trans_commit_start_and_unblock(root, cur_trans);
> else
> wait_current_trans_commit_start(root, cur_trans);
> - put_transaction(cur_trans);
>
> + if (current->journal_info == trans)
> + current->journal_info = NULL;
> +
> + put_transaction(cur_trans);
> return 0;
> }
>