xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 5/8] xfs: Protect xfs_file_aio_write() & xfs_setattr_size() w

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] xfs: Protect xfs_file_aio_write() & xfs_setattr_size() with sb_start_write - sb_end_write
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:19:26 +1100
Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Surbhi Palande <csurbhi@xxxxxxxxx>, Kamal Mostafa <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1327091686-23177-6-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx>
References: <1327091686-23177-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <1327091686-23177-6-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:34:43PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Replace racy xfs_wait_for_freeze() check in xfs_file_aio_write() with
> a reliable sb_start_write() - sb_end_write() locking. Due to lock ranking
> dictated by the page fault code we have to call sb_start_write() after we
> acquire ilock.

It appears to me that you have indeed confused the ilock with the
iolock.

> Similarly we have to protect xfs_setattr_size() because it can modify last
> page of truncated file. Because ilock is dropped in xfs_setattr_size() we
> have to drop and retake write access as well to avoid deadlocks.

> 
> CC: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> CC: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_file.c |    6 ++++--
>  fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c |    6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> index 753ed9b..9efd153 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> @@ -862,9 +862,11 @@ xfs_file_dio_aio_write(
>               *iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED;
>       }
>  
> +     sb_start_write(inode->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
>       trace_xfs_file_direct_write(ip, count, iocb->ki_pos, 0);
>       ret = generic_file_direct_write(iocb, iovp,
>                       &nr_segs, pos, &iocb->ki_pos, count, ocount);
> +     sb_end_write(inode->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);

That's inside the iolock, not the ilock. Either way, it is
incorrect. This accounting should be outside the iolock - because
xfs_trans_alloc() can be called with the iolock held. Therefore the
freeze/lock order needs to be

        sb_start_write(SB_FREEZE_WRITE)
          XFS(ip)->i_iolock
            XFS(ip)->i_ilock
        sb_end_write(SB_FREEZE_WRITE)

Which matches the current freeze/lock order.

> @@ -945,8 +949,6 @@ xfs_file_aio_write(
>       if (ocount == 0)
>               return 0;
>  
> -     xfs_wait_for_freeze(ip->i_mount, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> -

that's where sb_start_write() needs to be, and the sb-end_write()
call needs to below the generic_write_sync() calls that will trigger
IO on O_SYNC writes. Otherwise it is not covering all the IO path
correctly.

>       if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(ip->i_mount))
>               return -EIO;
>  
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> index 3579bc8..798b9c6 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
> @@ -793,6 +793,7 @@ xfs_setattr_size(
>               return xfs_setattr_nonsize(ip, iattr, 0);
>       }
>  
> +     sb_start_write(inode->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
>       /*
>        * Make sure that the dquots are attached to the inode.
>        */
> @@ -849,10 +850,14 @@ xfs_setattr_size(
>                                    xfs_get_blocks);
>       if (error)
>               goto out_unlock;
> +     /* Drop the write access to avoid lock inversion with ilock */
> +     sb_end_write(inode->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
>  
>       xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
>       lock_flags |= XFS_ILOCK_EXCL;
>  
> +     sb_start_write(inode->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> +

This is caused by the previous problems I pointed out. You should
not need to drop the freeze reference here at all.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>