From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: wqu@suse.com,dsterba@suse.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix the delalloc range locking if sector size < page" failed to apply to 6.11-stable tree
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 01:24:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2024102855-swab-anytime-3da1@gregkh> (raw)
The patch below does not apply to the 6.11-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.11.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x f10f59f91a6278e9637327d1206140d28e2d5004
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2024102855-swab-anytime-3da1@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.11.y' HEAD^..
Possible dependencies:
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From f10f59f91a6278e9637327d1206140d28e2d5004 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 09:37:03 +1030
Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix the delalloc range locking if sector size < page
size
Inside lock_delalloc_folios(), there are several problems related to
sector size < page size handling:
- Set the writer locks without checking if the folio is still valid
We call btrfs_folio_start_writer_lock() just like it's folio_lock().
But since the folio may not even be the folio of the current mapping,
we can easily screw up the folio->private.
- The range is not clamped inside the page
This means we can over write other bitmaps if the start/len is not
properly handled, and trigger the btrfs_subpage_assert().
- @processed_end is always rounded up to page end
If the delalloc range is not page aligned, and we need to retry
(returning -EAGAIN), then we will unlock to the page end.
Thankfully this is not a huge problem, as now
btrfs_folio_end_writer_lock() can handle range larger than the locked
range, and only unlock what is already locked.
Fix all these problems by:
- Lock and check the folio first, then call
btrfs_folio_set_writer_lock()
So that if we got a folio not belonging to the inode, we won't
touch folio->private.
- Properly truncate the range inside the page
- Update @processed_end to the locked range end
Fixes: 1e1de38792e0 ("btrfs: make process_one_page() to handle subpage locking")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.1+
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
index 309a8ae48434..872cca54cc6c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
@@ -262,22 +262,23 @@ static noinline int lock_delalloc_folios(struct inode *inode,
for (i = 0; i < found_folios; i++) {
struct folio *folio = fbatch.folios[i];
- u32 len = end + 1 - start;
+ u64 range_start;
+ u32 range_len;
if (folio == locked_folio)
continue;
- if (btrfs_folio_start_writer_lock(fs_info, folio, start,
- len))
- goto out;
-
+ folio_lock(folio);
if (!folio_test_dirty(folio) || folio->mapping != mapping) {
- btrfs_folio_end_writer_lock(fs_info, folio, start,
- len);
+ folio_unlock(folio);
goto out;
}
+ range_start = max_t(u64, folio_pos(folio), start);
+ range_len = min_t(u64, folio_pos(folio) + folio_size(folio),
+ end + 1) - range_start;
+ btrfs_folio_set_writer_lock(fs_info, folio, range_start, range_len);
- processed_end = folio_pos(folio) + folio_size(folio) - 1;
+ processed_end = range_start + range_len - 1;
}
folio_batch_release(&fbatch);
cond_resched();
reply other threads:[~2024-10-28 0:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=2024102855-swab-anytime-3da1@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.com \
/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