February 2025 - Linux-stable-mirror

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when" failed to apply to 6.1-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 6.1-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(a)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-6.1.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 72dad8e377afa50435940adfb697e070d3556670 # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020552-lark-replica-ce84@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.1.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 72dad8e377afa50435940adfb697e070d3556670 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:55 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when btrfs_run_delalloc_range() failed [BUG] When running btrfs with block size (4K) smaller than page size (64K, aarch64), there is a very high chance to crash the kernel at generic/750, with the following messages: (before the call traces, there are 3 extra debug messages added) BTRFS warning (device dm-3): read-write for sector size 4096 with page size 65536 is experimental BTRFS info (device dm-3): checking UUID tree hrtimer: interrupt took 5451385 ns BTRFS error (device dm-3): cow_file_range failed, root=4957 inode=257 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): run_delalloc_nocow failed, root=4957 inode=257 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): failed to run delalloc range, root=4957 ino=257 folio=1572864 submit_bitmap=8-15 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 3020984 at ordered-data.c:360 can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 3020984 Comm: kworker/u24:1 Tainted: G OE 6.13.0-rc1-custom+ #89 Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs] pc : can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] lr : can_finish_ordered_extent+0x1ec/0x3b8 [btrfs] Call trace: can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] (P) can_finish_ordered_extent+0x1ec/0x3b8 [btrfs] (L) btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished+0x130/0x2b8 [btrfs] extent_writepage+0x10c/0x3b8 [btrfs] extent_write_cache_pages+0x21c/0x4e8 [btrfs] btrfs_writepages+0x94/0x160 [btrfs] do_writepages+0x74/0x190 filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x74/0xa0 start_delalloc_inodes+0x17c/0x3b0 [btrfs] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x17c/0x288 [btrfs] shrink_delalloc+0x11c/0x280 [btrfs] flush_space+0x288/0x328 [btrfs] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x180/0x228 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x228/0x680 worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1605632 OE len=16384 to_dec=16384 left=0 BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1622016 OE len=12288 to_dec=12288 left=0 Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000008 BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1634304 OE len=8192 to_dec=4096 left=0 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 3286940 Comm: kworker/u24:3 Tainted: G W OE 6.13.0-rc1-custom+ #89 Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] (btrfs-endio-write) pstate: 404000c5 (nZcv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : process_one_work+0x110/0x680 lr : worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 Call trace: process_one_work+0x110/0x680 (P) worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 (L) worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: f84086a1 f9000fe1 53041c21 b9003361 (f9400661) ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception SMP: stopping secondary CPUs SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs 2-3 Dumping ftrace buffer: (ftrace buffer empty) Kernel Offset: 0x275bb9540000 from 0xffff800080000000 PHYS_OFFSET: 0xffff8fbba0000000 CPU features: 0x100,00000070,00801250,8201720b [CAUSE] The above warning is triggered immediately after the delalloc range failure, this happens in the following sequence: - Range [1568K, 1636K) is dirty 1536K 1568K 1600K 1636K 1664K | |/////////|////////| | Where 1536K, 1600K and 1664K are page boundaries (64K page size) - Enter extent_writepage() for page 1536K - Enter run_delalloc_nocow() with locked page 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) This is due to the inode having preallocated extents. - Enter cow_file_range() with locked page 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) - btrfs_reserve_extent() only reserved two extents The main loop of cow_file_range() only reserved two data extents, Now we have: 1536K 1568K 1600K 1636K 1664K | |<-->|<--->|/|///////| | 1584K 1596K Range [1568K, 1596K) has an ordered extent reserved. - btrfs_reserve_extent() failed inside cow_file_range() for file offset 1596K This is already a bug in our space reservation code, but for now let's focus on the error handling path. Now cow_file_range() returned -ENOSPC. - btrfs_run_delalloc_range() do error cleanup <<< ROOT CAUSE Call btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() with locked folio 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) Function btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() normally needs to skip the ranges inside the folio, as it will normally be cleaned up by extent_writepage(). Such split error handling is already problematic in the first place. What's worse is the folio range skipping itself, which is not taking subpage cases into consideration at all, it will only skip the range if the page start >= the range start. In our case, the page start < the range start, since for subpage cases we can have delalloc ranges inside the folio but not covering the folio. So it doesn't skip the page range at all. This means all the ordered extents, both [1568K, 1584K) and [1584K, 1596K) will be marked as IOERR. And these two ordered extents have no more pending ios, they are marked finished, and *QUEUED* to be deleted from the io tree. - extent_writepage() do error cleanup Call btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the range [1536K, 1600K). Although ranges [1568K, 1584K) and [1584K, 1596K) are finished, the deletion from io tree is async, it may or may not happen at this time. If the ranges have not yet been removed, we will do double cleaning on those ranges, triggering the above ordered extent warnings. In theory there are other bugs, like the cleanup in extent_writepage() can cause double accounting on ranges that are submitted asynchronously (compression for example). But that's much harder to trigger because normally we do not mix regular and compression delalloc ranges. [FIX] The folio range split is already buggy and not subpage compatible, it was introduced a long time ago where subpage support was not even considered. So instead of splitting the ordered extents cleanup into the folio range and out of folio range, do all the cleanup inside writepage_delalloc(). - Pass @NULL as locked_folio for btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() in btrfs_run_delalloc_range() - Skip the btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() if writepage_delalloc() failed So all ordered extents are only cleaned up by btrfs_run_delalloc_range(). - Handle the ranges that already have ordered extents allocated If part of the folio already has ordered extent allocated, and btrfs_run_delalloc_range() failed, we also need to cleanup that range. Now we have a concentrated error handling for ordered extents during btrfs_run_delalloc_range(). Fixes: d1051d6ebf8e ("btrfs: Fix error handling in btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents") CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Reviewed-by: Boris Burkov <boris(a)bur.io> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index c068a442753c..bc2bd103c8cc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1134,14 +1134,19 @@ static bool find_next_delalloc_bitmap(struct folio *folio, } /* - * helper for extent_writepage(), doing all of the delayed allocation setup. + * Do all of the delayed allocation setup. * - * This returns 1 if btrfs_run_delalloc_range function did all the work required - * to write the page (copy into inline extent). In this case the IO has - * been started and the page is already unlocked. + * Return >0 if all the dirty blocks are submitted async (compression) or inlined. + * The @folio should no longer be touched (treat it as already unlocked). * - * This returns 0 if all went well (page still locked) - * This returns < 0 if there were errors (page still locked) + * Return 0 if there is still dirty block that needs to be submitted through + * extent_writepage_io(). + * bio_ctrl->submit_bitmap will indicate which blocks of the folio should be + * submitted, and @folio is still kept locked. + * + * Return <0 if there is any error hit. + * Any allocated ordered extent range covering this folio will be marked + * finished (IOERR), and @folio is still kept locked. */ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct folio *folio, @@ -1159,6 +1164,16 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * last delalloc end. */ u64 last_delalloc_end = 0; + /* + * The range end (exclusive) of the last successfully finished delalloc + * range. + * Any range covered by ordered extent must either be manually marked + * finished (error handling), or has IO submitted (and finish the + * ordered extent normally). + * + * This records the end of ordered extent cleanup if we hit an error. + */ + u64 last_finished_delalloc_end = page_start; u64 delalloc_start = page_start; u64 delalloc_end = page_end; u64 delalloc_to_write = 0; @@ -1227,11 +1242,19 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, found_len = last_delalloc_end + 1 - found_start; if (ret >= 0) { + /* + * Some delalloc range may be created by previous folios. + * Thus we still need to clean up this range during error + * handling. + */ + last_finished_delalloc_end = found_start; /* No errors hit so far, run the current delalloc range. */ ret = btrfs_run_delalloc_range(inode, folio, found_start, found_start + found_len - 1, wbc); + if (ret >= 0) + last_finished_delalloc_end = found_start + found_len; } else { /* * We've hit an error during previous delalloc range, @@ -1266,8 +1289,22 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, delalloc_start = found_start + found_len; } - if (ret < 0) + /* + * It's possible we had some ordered extents created before we hit + * an error, cleanup non-async successfully created delalloc ranges. + */ + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + unsigned int bitmap_size = min( + (last_finished_delalloc_end - page_start) >> + fs_info->sectorsize_bits, + fs_info->sectors_per_page); + + for_each_set_bit(bit, &bio_ctrl->submit_bitmap, bitmap_size) + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, + page_start + (bit << fs_info->sectorsize_bits), + fs_info->sectorsize, false); return ret; + } out: if (last_delalloc_end) delalloc_end = last_delalloc_end; @@ -1501,13 +1538,13 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; -done: - if (ret) { + if (ret) btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); - } +done: + if (ret < 0) + mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); /* * Only unlock ranges that are submitted. As there can be some async * submitted ranges inside the folio. diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c index 1546f341f9a4..b81afe757f64 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c @@ -2301,8 +2301,7 @@ int btrfs_run_delalloc_range(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct folio *locked_fol out: if (ret < 0) - btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents(inode, locked_folio, start, - end - start + 1); + btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents(inode, NULL, start, end - start + 1); return ret; }

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-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(a)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-6.6.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 72dad8e377afa50435940adfb697e070d3556670 # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020549-blast-sports-fb0a@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 72dad8e377afa50435940adfb697e070d3556670 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:55 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when btrfs_run_delalloc_range() failed [BUG] When running btrfs with block size (4K) smaller than page size (64K, aarch64), there is a very high chance to crash the kernel at generic/750, with the following messages: (before the call traces, there are 3 extra debug messages added) BTRFS warning (device dm-3): read-write for sector size 4096 with page size 65536 is experimental BTRFS info (device dm-3): checking UUID tree hrtimer: interrupt took 5451385 ns BTRFS error (device dm-3): cow_file_range failed, root=4957 inode=257 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): run_delalloc_nocow failed, root=4957 inode=257 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): failed to run delalloc range, root=4957 ino=257 folio=1572864 submit_bitmap=8-15 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 3020984 at ordered-data.c:360 can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 3020984 Comm: kworker/u24:1 Tainted: G OE 6.13.0-rc1-custom+ #89 Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs] pc : can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] lr : can_finish_ordered_extent+0x1ec/0x3b8 [btrfs] Call trace: can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] (P) can_finish_ordered_extent+0x1ec/0x3b8 [btrfs] (L) btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished+0x130/0x2b8 [btrfs] extent_writepage+0x10c/0x3b8 [btrfs] extent_write_cache_pages+0x21c/0x4e8 [btrfs] btrfs_writepages+0x94/0x160 [btrfs] do_writepages+0x74/0x190 filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x74/0xa0 start_delalloc_inodes+0x17c/0x3b0 [btrfs] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x17c/0x288 [btrfs] shrink_delalloc+0x11c/0x280 [btrfs] flush_space+0x288/0x328 [btrfs] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x180/0x228 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x228/0x680 worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1605632 OE len=16384 to_dec=16384 left=0 BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1622016 OE len=12288 to_dec=12288 left=0 Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000008 BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1634304 OE len=8192 to_dec=4096 left=0 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 3286940 Comm: kworker/u24:3 Tainted: G W OE 6.13.0-rc1-custom+ #89 Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] (btrfs-endio-write) pstate: 404000c5 (nZcv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : process_one_work+0x110/0x680 lr : worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 Call trace: process_one_work+0x110/0x680 (P) worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 (L) worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: f84086a1 f9000fe1 53041c21 b9003361 (f9400661) ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception SMP: stopping secondary CPUs SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs 2-3 Dumping ftrace buffer: (ftrace buffer empty) Kernel Offset: 0x275bb9540000 from 0xffff800080000000 PHYS_OFFSET: 0xffff8fbba0000000 CPU features: 0x100,00000070,00801250,8201720b [CAUSE] The above warning is triggered immediately after the delalloc range failure, this happens in the following sequence: - Range [1568K, 1636K) is dirty 1536K 1568K 1600K 1636K 1664K | |/////////|////////| | Where 1536K, 1600K and 1664K are page boundaries (64K page size) - Enter extent_writepage() for page 1536K - Enter run_delalloc_nocow() with locked page 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) This is due to the inode having preallocated extents. - Enter cow_file_range() with locked page 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) - btrfs_reserve_extent() only reserved two extents The main loop of cow_file_range() only reserved two data extents, Now we have: 1536K 1568K 1600K 1636K 1664K | |<-->|<--->|/|///////| | 1584K 1596K Range [1568K, 1596K) has an ordered extent reserved. - btrfs_reserve_extent() failed inside cow_file_range() for file offset 1596K This is already a bug in our space reservation code, but for now let's focus on the error handling path. Now cow_file_range() returned -ENOSPC. - btrfs_run_delalloc_range() do error cleanup <<< ROOT CAUSE Call btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() with locked folio 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) Function btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() normally needs to skip the ranges inside the folio, as it will normally be cleaned up by extent_writepage(). Such split error handling is already problematic in the first place. What's worse is the folio range skipping itself, which is not taking subpage cases into consideration at all, it will only skip the range if the page start >= the range start. In our case, the page start < the range start, since for subpage cases we can have delalloc ranges inside the folio but not covering the folio. So it doesn't skip the page range at all. This means all the ordered extents, both [1568K, 1584K) and [1584K, 1596K) will be marked as IOERR. And these two ordered extents have no more pending ios, they are marked finished, and *QUEUED* to be deleted from the io tree. - extent_writepage() do error cleanup Call btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the range [1536K, 1600K). Although ranges [1568K, 1584K) and [1584K, 1596K) are finished, the deletion from io tree is async, it may or may not happen at this time. If the ranges have not yet been removed, we will do double cleaning on those ranges, triggering the above ordered extent warnings. In theory there are other bugs, like the cleanup in extent_writepage() can cause double accounting on ranges that are submitted asynchronously (compression for example). But that's much harder to trigger because normally we do not mix regular and compression delalloc ranges. [FIX] The folio range split is already buggy and not subpage compatible, it was introduced a long time ago where subpage support was not even considered. So instead of splitting the ordered extents cleanup into the folio range and out of folio range, do all the cleanup inside writepage_delalloc(). - Pass @NULL as locked_folio for btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() in btrfs_run_delalloc_range() - Skip the btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() if writepage_delalloc() failed So all ordered extents are only cleaned up by btrfs_run_delalloc_range(). - Handle the ranges that already have ordered extents allocated If part of the folio already has ordered extent allocated, and btrfs_run_delalloc_range() failed, we also need to cleanup that range. Now we have a concentrated error handling for ordered extents during btrfs_run_delalloc_range(). Fixes: d1051d6ebf8e ("btrfs: Fix error handling in btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents") CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Reviewed-by: Boris Burkov <boris(a)bur.io> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index c068a442753c..bc2bd103c8cc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1134,14 +1134,19 @@ static bool find_next_delalloc_bitmap(struct folio *folio, } /* - * helper for extent_writepage(), doing all of the delayed allocation setup. + * Do all of the delayed allocation setup. * - * This returns 1 if btrfs_run_delalloc_range function did all the work required - * to write the page (copy into inline extent). In this case the IO has - * been started and the page is already unlocked. + * Return >0 if all the dirty blocks are submitted async (compression) or inlined. + * The @folio should no longer be touched (treat it as already unlocked). * - * This returns 0 if all went well (page still locked) - * This returns < 0 if there were errors (page still locked) + * Return 0 if there is still dirty block that needs to be submitted through + * extent_writepage_io(). + * bio_ctrl->submit_bitmap will indicate which blocks of the folio should be + * submitted, and @folio is still kept locked. + * + * Return <0 if there is any error hit. + * Any allocated ordered extent range covering this folio will be marked + * finished (IOERR), and @folio is still kept locked. */ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct folio *folio, @@ -1159,6 +1164,16 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * last delalloc end. */ u64 last_delalloc_end = 0; + /* + * The range end (exclusive) of the last successfully finished delalloc + * range. + * Any range covered by ordered extent must either be manually marked + * finished (error handling), or has IO submitted (and finish the + * ordered extent normally). + * + * This records the end of ordered extent cleanup if we hit an error. + */ + u64 last_finished_delalloc_end = page_start; u64 delalloc_start = page_start; u64 delalloc_end = page_end; u64 delalloc_to_write = 0; @@ -1227,11 +1242,19 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, found_len = last_delalloc_end + 1 - found_start; if (ret >= 0) { + /* + * Some delalloc range may be created by previous folios. + * Thus we still need to clean up this range during error + * handling. + */ + last_finished_delalloc_end = found_start; /* No errors hit so far, run the current delalloc range. */ ret = btrfs_run_delalloc_range(inode, folio, found_start, found_start + found_len - 1, wbc); + if (ret >= 0) + last_finished_delalloc_end = found_start + found_len; } else { /* * We've hit an error during previous delalloc range, @@ -1266,8 +1289,22 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, delalloc_start = found_start + found_len; } - if (ret < 0) + /* + * It's possible we had some ordered extents created before we hit + * an error, cleanup non-async successfully created delalloc ranges. + */ + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + unsigned int bitmap_size = min( + (last_finished_delalloc_end - page_start) >> + fs_info->sectorsize_bits, + fs_info->sectors_per_page); + + for_each_set_bit(bit, &bio_ctrl->submit_bitmap, bitmap_size) + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, + page_start + (bit << fs_info->sectorsize_bits), + fs_info->sectorsize, false); return ret; + } out: if (last_delalloc_end) delalloc_end = last_delalloc_end; @@ -1501,13 +1538,13 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; -done: - if (ret) { + if (ret) btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); - } +done: + if (ret < 0) + mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); /* * Only unlock ranges that are submitted. As there can be some async * submitted ranges inside the folio. diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c index 1546f341f9a4..b81afe757f64 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c @@ -2301,8 +2301,7 @@ int btrfs_run_delalloc_range(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct folio *locked_fol out: if (ret < 0) - btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents(inode, locked_folio, start, - end - start + 1); + btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents(inode, NULL, start, end - start + 1); return ret; }

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when" failed to apply to 6.12-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 6.12-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(a)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-6.12.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 72dad8e377afa50435940adfb697e070d3556670 # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020547-navigator-sesame-819a@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.12.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 72dad8e377afa50435940adfb697e070d3556670 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:55 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when btrfs_run_delalloc_range() failed [BUG] When running btrfs with block size (4K) smaller than page size (64K, aarch64), there is a very high chance to crash the kernel at generic/750, with the following messages: (before the call traces, there are 3 extra debug messages added) BTRFS warning (device dm-3): read-write for sector size 4096 with page size 65536 is experimental BTRFS info (device dm-3): checking UUID tree hrtimer: interrupt took 5451385 ns BTRFS error (device dm-3): cow_file_range failed, root=4957 inode=257 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): run_delalloc_nocow failed, root=4957 inode=257 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): failed to run delalloc range, root=4957 ino=257 folio=1572864 submit_bitmap=8-15 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 3020984 at ordered-data.c:360 can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 3020984 Comm: kworker/u24:1 Tainted: G OE 6.13.0-rc1-custom+ #89 Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs] pc : can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] lr : can_finish_ordered_extent+0x1ec/0x3b8 [btrfs] Call trace: can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] (P) can_finish_ordered_extent+0x1ec/0x3b8 [btrfs] (L) btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished+0x130/0x2b8 [btrfs] extent_writepage+0x10c/0x3b8 [btrfs] extent_write_cache_pages+0x21c/0x4e8 [btrfs] btrfs_writepages+0x94/0x160 [btrfs] do_writepages+0x74/0x190 filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x74/0xa0 start_delalloc_inodes+0x17c/0x3b0 [btrfs] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x17c/0x288 [btrfs] shrink_delalloc+0x11c/0x280 [btrfs] flush_space+0x288/0x328 [btrfs] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x180/0x228 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x228/0x680 worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1605632 OE len=16384 to_dec=16384 left=0 BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1622016 OE len=12288 to_dec=12288 left=0 Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000008 BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1634304 OE len=8192 to_dec=4096 left=0 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 3286940 Comm: kworker/u24:3 Tainted: G W OE 6.13.0-rc1-custom+ #89 Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] (btrfs-endio-write) pstate: 404000c5 (nZcv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : process_one_work+0x110/0x680 lr : worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 Call trace: process_one_work+0x110/0x680 (P) worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 (L) worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: f84086a1 f9000fe1 53041c21 b9003361 (f9400661) ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception SMP: stopping secondary CPUs SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs 2-3 Dumping ftrace buffer: (ftrace buffer empty) Kernel Offset: 0x275bb9540000 from 0xffff800080000000 PHYS_OFFSET: 0xffff8fbba0000000 CPU features: 0x100,00000070,00801250,8201720b [CAUSE] The above warning is triggered immediately after the delalloc range failure, this happens in the following sequence: - Range [1568K, 1636K) is dirty 1536K 1568K 1600K 1636K 1664K | |/////////|////////| | Where 1536K, 1600K and 1664K are page boundaries (64K page size) - Enter extent_writepage() for page 1536K - Enter run_delalloc_nocow() with locked page 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) This is due to the inode having preallocated extents. - Enter cow_file_range() with locked page 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) - btrfs_reserve_extent() only reserved two extents The main loop of cow_file_range() only reserved two data extents, Now we have: 1536K 1568K 1600K 1636K 1664K | |<-->|<--->|/|///////| | 1584K 1596K Range [1568K, 1596K) has an ordered extent reserved. - btrfs_reserve_extent() failed inside cow_file_range() for file offset 1596K This is already a bug in our space reservation code, but for now let's focus on the error handling path. Now cow_file_range() returned -ENOSPC. - btrfs_run_delalloc_range() do error cleanup <<< ROOT CAUSE Call btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() with locked folio 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) Function btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() normally needs to skip the ranges inside the folio, as it will normally be cleaned up by extent_writepage(). Such split error handling is already problematic in the first place. What's worse is the folio range skipping itself, which is not taking subpage cases into consideration at all, it will only skip the range if the page start >= the range start. In our case, the page start < the range start, since for subpage cases we can have delalloc ranges inside the folio but not covering the folio. So it doesn't skip the page range at all. This means all the ordered extents, both [1568K, 1584K) and [1584K, 1596K) will be marked as IOERR. And these two ordered extents have no more pending ios, they are marked finished, and *QUEUED* to be deleted from the io tree. - extent_writepage() do error cleanup Call btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the range [1536K, 1600K). Although ranges [1568K, 1584K) and [1584K, 1596K) are finished, the deletion from io tree is async, it may or may not happen at this time. If the ranges have not yet been removed, we will do double cleaning on those ranges, triggering the above ordered extent warnings. In theory there are other bugs, like the cleanup in extent_writepage() can cause double accounting on ranges that are submitted asynchronously (compression for example). But that's much harder to trigger because normally we do not mix regular and compression delalloc ranges. [FIX] The folio range split is already buggy and not subpage compatible, it was introduced a long time ago where subpage support was not even considered. So instead of splitting the ordered extents cleanup into the folio range and out of folio range, do all the cleanup inside writepage_delalloc(). - Pass @NULL as locked_folio for btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() in btrfs_run_delalloc_range() - Skip the btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() if writepage_delalloc() failed So all ordered extents are only cleaned up by btrfs_run_delalloc_range(). - Handle the ranges that already have ordered extents allocated If part of the folio already has ordered extent allocated, and btrfs_run_delalloc_range() failed, we also need to cleanup that range. Now we have a concentrated error handling for ordered extents during btrfs_run_delalloc_range(). Fixes: d1051d6ebf8e ("btrfs: Fix error handling in btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents") CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Reviewed-by: Boris Burkov <boris(a)bur.io> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index c068a442753c..bc2bd103c8cc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1134,14 +1134,19 @@ static bool find_next_delalloc_bitmap(struct folio *folio, } /* - * helper for extent_writepage(), doing all of the delayed allocation setup. + * Do all of the delayed allocation setup. * - * This returns 1 if btrfs_run_delalloc_range function did all the work required - * to write the page (copy into inline extent). In this case the IO has - * been started and the page is already unlocked. + * Return >0 if all the dirty blocks are submitted async (compression) or inlined. + * The @folio should no longer be touched (treat it as already unlocked). * - * This returns 0 if all went well (page still locked) - * This returns < 0 if there were errors (page still locked) + * Return 0 if there is still dirty block that needs to be submitted through + * extent_writepage_io(). + * bio_ctrl->submit_bitmap will indicate which blocks of the folio should be + * submitted, and @folio is still kept locked. + * + * Return <0 if there is any error hit. + * Any allocated ordered extent range covering this folio will be marked + * finished (IOERR), and @folio is still kept locked. */ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct folio *folio, @@ -1159,6 +1164,16 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * last delalloc end. */ u64 last_delalloc_end = 0; + /* + * The range end (exclusive) of the last successfully finished delalloc + * range. + * Any range covered by ordered extent must either be manually marked + * finished (error handling), or has IO submitted (and finish the + * ordered extent normally). + * + * This records the end of ordered extent cleanup if we hit an error. + */ + u64 last_finished_delalloc_end = page_start; u64 delalloc_start = page_start; u64 delalloc_end = page_end; u64 delalloc_to_write = 0; @@ -1227,11 +1242,19 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, found_len = last_delalloc_end + 1 - found_start; if (ret >= 0) { + /* + * Some delalloc range may be created by previous folios. + * Thus we still need to clean up this range during error + * handling. + */ + last_finished_delalloc_end = found_start; /* No errors hit so far, run the current delalloc range. */ ret = btrfs_run_delalloc_range(inode, folio, found_start, found_start + found_len - 1, wbc); + if (ret >= 0) + last_finished_delalloc_end = found_start + found_len; } else { /* * We've hit an error during previous delalloc range, @@ -1266,8 +1289,22 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, delalloc_start = found_start + found_len; } - if (ret < 0) + /* + * It's possible we had some ordered extents created before we hit + * an error, cleanup non-async successfully created delalloc ranges. + */ + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + unsigned int bitmap_size = min( + (last_finished_delalloc_end - page_start) >> + fs_info->sectorsize_bits, + fs_info->sectors_per_page); + + for_each_set_bit(bit, &bio_ctrl->submit_bitmap, bitmap_size) + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, + page_start + (bit << fs_info->sectorsize_bits), + fs_info->sectorsize, false); return ret; + } out: if (last_delalloc_end) delalloc_end = last_delalloc_end; @@ -1501,13 +1538,13 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; -done: - if (ret) { + if (ret) btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); - } +done: + if (ret < 0) + mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); /* * Only unlock ranges that are submitted. As there can be some async * submitted ranges inside the folio. diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c index 1546f341f9a4..b81afe757f64 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c @@ -2301,8 +2301,7 @@ int btrfs_run_delalloc_range(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct folio *locked_fol out: if (ret < 0) - btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents(inode, locked_folio, start, - end - start + 1); + btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents(inode, NULL, start, end - start + 1); return ret; }

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when" failed to apply to 6.13-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 6.13-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(a)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-6.13.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 72dad8e377afa50435940adfb697e070d3556670 # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020544-aftermath-monkhood-1fa2@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.13.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 72dad8e377afa50435940adfb697e070d3556670 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:55 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when btrfs_run_delalloc_range() failed [BUG] When running btrfs with block size (4K) smaller than page size (64K, aarch64), there is a very high chance to crash the kernel at generic/750, with the following messages: (before the call traces, there are 3 extra debug messages added) BTRFS warning (device dm-3): read-write for sector size 4096 with page size 65536 is experimental BTRFS info (device dm-3): checking UUID tree hrtimer: interrupt took 5451385 ns BTRFS error (device dm-3): cow_file_range failed, root=4957 inode=257 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): run_delalloc_nocow failed, root=4957 inode=257 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 BTRFS error (device dm-3): failed to run delalloc range, root=4957 ino=257 folio=1572864 submit_bitmap=8-15 start=1605632 len=69632: -28 ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 3020984 at ordered-data.c:360 can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 3020984 Comm: kworker/u24:1 Tainted: G OE 6.13.0-rc1-custom+ #89 Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs] pc : can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] lr : can_finish_ordered_extent+0x1ec/0x3b8 [btrfs] Call trace: can_finish_ordered_extent+0x370/0x3b8 [btrfs] (P) can_finish_ordered_extent+0x1ec/0x3b8 [btrfs] (L) btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished+0x130/0x2b8 [btrfs] extent_writepage+0x10c/0x3b8 [btrfs] extent_write_cache_pages+0x21c/0x4e8 [btrfs] btrfs_writepages+0x94/0x160 [btrfs] do_writepages+0x74/0x190 filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x74/0xa0 start_delalloc_inodes+0x17c/0x3b0 [btrfs] btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x17c/0x288 [btrfs] shrink_delalloc+0x11c/0x280 [btrfs] flush_space+0x288/0x328 [btrfs] btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x180/0x228 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x228/0x680 worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1605632 OE len=16384 to_dec=16384 left=0 BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1622016 OE len=12288 to_dec=12288 left=0 Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000008 BTRFS critical (device dm-3): bad ordered extent accounting, root=4957 ino=257 OE offset=1634304 OE len=8192 to_dec=4096 left=0 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 3286940 Comm: kworker/u24:3 Tainted: G W OE 6.13.0-rc1-custom+ #89 Hardware name: QEMU KVM Virtual Machine, BIOS unknown 2/2/2022 Workqueue: btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] (btrfs-endio-write) pstate: 404000c5 (nZcv daIF +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : process_one_work+0x110/0x680 lr : worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 Call trace: process_one_work+0x110/0x680 (P) worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 (L) worker_thread+0x1bc/0x360 kthread+0x100/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: f84086a1 f9000fe1 53041c21 b9003361 (f9400661) ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception SMP: stopping secondary CPUs SMP: failed to stop secondary CPUs 2-3 Dumping ftrace buffer: (ftrace buffer empty) Kernel Offset: 0x275bb9540000 from 0xffff800080000000 PHYS_OFFSET: 0xffff8fbba0000000 CPU features: 0x100,00000070,00801250,8201720b [CAUSE] The above warning is triggered immediately after the delalloc range failure, this happens in the following sequence: - Range [1568K, 1636K) is dirty 1536K 1568K 1600K 1636K 1664K | |/////////|////////| | Where 1536K, 1600K and 1664K are page boundaries (64K page size) - Enter extent_writepage() for page 1536K - Enter run_delalloc_nocow() with locked page 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) This is due to the inode having preallocated extents. - Enter cow_file_range() with locked page 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) - btrfs_reserve_extent() only reserved two extents The main loop of cow_file_range() only reserved two data extents, Now we have: 1536K 1568K 1600K 1636K 1664K | |<-->|<--->|/|///////| | 1584K 1596K Range [1568K, 1596K) has an ordered extent reserved. - btrfs_reserve_extent() failed inside cow_file_range() for file offset 1596K This is already a bug in our space reservation code, but for now let's focus on the error handling path. Now cow_file_range() returned -ENOSPC. - btrfs_run_delalloc_range() do error cleanup <<< ROOT CAUSE Call btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() with locked folio 1536K and range [1568K, 1636K) Function btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() normally needs to skip the ranges inside the folio, as it will normally be cleaned up by extent_writepage(). Such split error handling is already problematic in the first place. What's worse is the folio range skipping itself, which is not taking subpage cases into consideration at all, it will only skip the range if the page start >= the range start. In our case, the page start < the range start, since for subpage cases we can have delalloc ranges inside the folio but not covering the folio. So it doesn't skip the page range at all. This means all the ordered extents, both [1568K, 1584K) and [1584K, 1596K) will be marked as IOERR. And these two ordered extents have no more pending ios, they are marked finished, and *QUEUED* to be deleted from the io tree. - extent_writepage() do error cleanup Call btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the range [1536K, 1600K). Although ranges [1568K, 1584K) and [1584K, 1596K) are finished, the deletion from io tree is async, it may or may not happen at this time. If the ranges have not yet been removed, we will do double cleaning on those ranges, triggering the above ordered extent warnings. In theory there are other bugs, like the cleanup in extent_writepage() can cause double accounting on ranges that are submitted asynchronously (compression for example). But that's much harder to trigger because normally we do not mix regular and compression delalloc ranges. [FIX] The folio range split is already buggy and not subpage compatible, it was introduced a long time ago where subpage support was not even considered. So instead of splitting the ordered extents cleanup into the folio range and out of folio range, do all the cleanup inside writepage_delalloc(). - Pass @NULL as locked_folio for btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() in btrfs_run_delalloc_range() - Skip the btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents() if writepage_delalloc() failed So all ordered extents are only cleaned up by btrfs_run_delalloc_range(). - Handle the ranges that already have ordered extents allocated If part of the folio already has ordered extent allocated, and btrfs_run_delalloc_range() failed, we also need to cleanup that range. Now we have a concentrated error handling for ordered extents during btrfs_run_delalloc_range(). Fixes: d1051d6ebf8e ("btrfs: Fix error handling in btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents") CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Reviewed-by: Boris Burkov <boris(a)bur.io> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index c068a442753c..bc2bd103c8cc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1134,14 +1134,19 @@ static bool find_next_delalloc_bitmap(struct folio *folio, } /* - * helper for extent_writepage(), doing all of the delayed allocation setup. + * Do all of the delayed allocation setup. * - * This returns 1 if btrfs_run_delalloc_range function did all the work required - * to write the page (copy into inline extent). In this case the IO has - * been started and the page is already unlocked. + * Return >0 if all the dirty blocks are submitted async (compression) or inlined. + * The @folio should no longer be touched (treat it as already unlocked). * - * This returns 0 if all went well (page still locked) - * This returns < 0 if there were errors (page still locked) + * Return 0 if there is still dirty block that needs to be submitted through + * extent_writepage_io(). + * bio_ctrl->submit_bitmap will indicate which blocks of the folio should be + * submitted, and @folio is still kept locked. + * + * Return <0 if there is any error hit. + * Any allocated ordered extent range covering this folio will be marked + * finished (IOERR), and @folio is still kept locked. */ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct folio *folio, @@ -1159,6 +1164,16 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * last delalloc end. */ u64 last_delalloc_end = 0; + /* + * The range end (exclusive) of the last successfully finished delalloc + * range. + * Any range covered by ordered extent must either be manually marked + * finished (error handling), or has IO submitted (and finish the + * ordered extent normally). + * + * This records the end of ordered extent cleanup if we hit an error. + */ + u64 last_finished_delalloc_end = page_start; u64 delalloc_start = page_start; u64 delalloc_end = page_end; u64 delalloc_to_write = 0; @@ -1227,11 +1242,19 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, found_len = last_delalloc_end + 1 - found_start; if (ret >= 0) { + /* + * Some delalloc range may be created by previous folios. + * Thus we still need to clean up this range during error + * handling. + */ + last_finished_delalloc_end = found_start; /* No errors hit so far, run the current delalloc range. */ ret = btrfs_run_delalloc_range(inode, folio, found_start, found_start + found_len - 1, wbc); + if (ret >= 0) + last_finished_delalloc_end = found_start + found_len; } else { /* * We've hit an error during previous delalloc range, @@ -1266,8 +1289,22 @@ static noinline_for_stack int writepage_delalloc(struct btrfs_inode *inode, delalloc_start = found_start + found_len; } - if (ret < 0) + /* + * It's possible we had some ordered extents created before we hit + * an error, cleanup non-async successfully created delalloc ranges. + */ + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + unsigned int bitmap_size = min( + (last_finished_delalloc_end - page_start) >> + fs_info->sectorsize_bits, + fs_info->sectors_per_page); + + for_each_set_bit(bit, &bio_ctrl->submit_bitmap, bitmap_size) + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, + page_start + (bit << fs_info->sectorsize_bits), + fs_info->sectorsize, false); return ret; + } out: if (last_delalloc_end) delalloc_end = last_delalloc_end; @@ -1501,13 +1538,13 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; -done: - if (ret) { + if (ret) btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); - } +done: + if (ret < 0) + mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); /* * Only unlock ranges that are submitted. As there can be some async * submitted ranges inside the folio. diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c index 1546f341f9a4..b81afe757f64 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c @@ -2301,8 +2301,7 @@ int btrfs_run_delalloc_range(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct folio *locked_fol out: if (ret < 0) - btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents(inode, locked_folio, start, - end - start + 1); + btrfs_cleanup_ordered_extents(inode, NULL, start, end - start + 1); return ret; }

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io()" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-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(a)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-5.4.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020538-unmoving-shelving-20de@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.4.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:56 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io() failed [BUG] If submit_one_sector() failed inside extent_writepage_io() for sector size < page size cases (e.g. 4K sector size and 64K page size), then we can hit double ordered extent accounting error. This should be very rare, as submit_one_sector() only fails when we failed to grab the extent map, and such extent map should exist inside the memory and has been pinned. [CAUSE] For example we have the following folio layout: 0 4K 32K 48K 60K 64K |//| |//////| |///| Where |///| is the dirty range we need to writeback. The 3 different dirty ranges are submitted for regular COW. Now we hit the following sequence: - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [0, 4K) - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [32K, 48K) - submit_one_sector() returned error for [60K, 64K) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() called for the whole folio This will mark the following ranges as finished: * [0, 4K) * [32K, 48K) Both ranges have their IO already submitted, this cleanup will lead to double accounting. * [60K, 64K) That's the correct cleanup. The only good news is, this error is only theoretical, as the target extent map is always pinned, thus we should directly grab it from memory, other than reading it from the disk. [FIX] Instead of calling btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the whole folio range, which can touch ranges we should not touch, instead move the error handling inside extent_writepage_io(). So that we can cleanup exact sectors that ought to be submitted but failed. This provides much more accurate cleanup, avoiding the double accounting. CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index bc2bd103c8cc..5014134b9aa2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1420,6 +1420,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; unsigned long range_bitmap = 0; bool submitted_io = false; + bool error = false; const u64 folio_start = folio_pos(folio); u64 cur; int bit; @@ -1462,11 +1463,26 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, break; } ret = submit_one_sector(inode, folio, cur, bio_ctrl, i_size); - if (ret < 0) - goto out; + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + /* + * bio_ctrl may contain a bio crossing several folios. + * Submit it immediately so that the bio has a chance + * to finish normally, other than marked as error. + */ + submit_one_bio(bio_ctrl); + /* + * Failed to grab the extent map which should be very rare. + * Since there is no bio submitted to finish the ordered + * extent, we have to manually finish this sector. + */ + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, cur, + fs_info->sectorsize, false); + error = true; + continue; + } submitted_io = true; } -out: + /* * If we didn't submitted any sector (>= i_size), folio dirty get * cleared but PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY is not cleared (only cleared @@ -1474,8 +1490,11 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * * Here we set writeback and clear for the range. If the full folio * is no longer dirty then we clear the PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY tag. + * + * If we hit any error, the corresponding sector will still be dirty + * thus no need to clear PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY. */ - if (!submitted_io) { + if (!submitted_io && !error) { btrfs_folio_set_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); btrfs_folio_clear_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); } @@ -1495,7 +1514,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl { struct btrfs_inode *inode = BTRFS_I(folio->mapping->host); struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; - const u64 page_start = folio_pos(folio); int ret; size_t pg_offset; loff_t i_size = i_size_read(&inode->vfs_inode); @@ -1538,10 +1556,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; - if (ret) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, - page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - done: if (ret < 0) mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); @@ -2314,11 +2328,8 @@ void extent_write_locked_range(struct inode *inode, const struct folio *locked_f if (ret == 1) goto next_page; - if (ret) { - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(BTRFS_I(inode), folio, - cur, cur_len, !ret); + if (ret) mapping_set_error(mapping, ret); - } btrfs_folio_end_lock(fs_info, folio, cur, cur_len); if (ret < 0) found_error = true;

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io()" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-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(a)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-5.10.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020537-dominoes-catty-42c4@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.10.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:56 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io() failed [BUG] If submit_one_sector() failed inside extent_writepage_io() for sector size < page size cases (e.g. 4K sector size and 64K page size), then we can hit double ordered extent accounting error. This should be very rare, as submit_one_sector() only fails when we failed to grab the extent map, and such extent map should exist inside the memory and has been pinned. [CAUSE] For example we have the following folio layout: 0 4K 32K 48K 60K 64K |//| |//////| |///| Where |///| is the dirty range we need to writeback. The 3 different dirty ranges are submitted for regular COW. Now we hit the following sequence: - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [0, 4K) - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [32K, 48K) - submit_one_sector() returned error for [60K, 64K) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() called for the whole folio This will mark the following ranges as finished: * [0, 4K) * [32K, 48K) Both ranges have their IO already submitted, this cleanup will lead to double accounting. * [60K, 64K) That's the correct cleanup. The only good news is, this error is only theoretical, as the target extent map is always pinned, thus we should directly grab it from memory, other than reading it from the disk. [FIX] Instead of calling btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the whole folio range, which can touch ranges we should not touch, instead move the error handling inside extent_writepage_io(). So that we can cleanup exact sectors that ought to be submitted but failed. This provides much more accurate cleanup, avoiding the double accounting. CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index bc2bd103c8cc..5014134b9aa2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1420,6 +1420,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; unsigned long range_bitmap = 0; bool submitted_io = false; + bool error = false; const u64 folio_start = folio_pos(folio); u64 cur; int bit; @@ -1462,11 +1463,26 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, break; } ret = submit_one_sector(inode, folio, cur, bio_ctrl, i_size); - if (ret < 0) - goto out; + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + /* + * bio_ctrl may contain a bio crossing several folios. + * Submit it immediately so that the bio has a chance + * to finish normally, other than marked as error. + */ + submit_one_bio(bio_ctrl); + /* + * Failed to grab the extent map which should be very rare. + * Since there is no bio submitted to finish the ordered + * extent, we have to manually finish this sector. + */ + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, cur, + fs_info->sectorsize, false); + error = true; + continue; + } submitted_io = true; } -out: + /* * If we didn't submitted any sector (>= i_size), folio dirty get * cleared but PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY is not cleared (only cleared @@ -1474,8 +1490,11 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * * Here we set writeback and clear for the range. If the full folio * is no longer dirty then we clear the PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY tag. + * + * If we hit any error, the corresponding sector will still be dirty + * thus no need to clear PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY. */ - if (!submitted_io) { + if (!submitted_io && !error) { btrfs_folio_set_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); btrfs_folio_clear_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); } @@ -1495,7 +1514,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl { struct btrfs_inode *inode = BTRFS_I(folio->mapping->host); struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; - const u64 page_start = folio_pos(folio); int ret; size_t pg_offset; loff_t i_size = i_size_read(&inode->vfs_inode); @@ -1538,10 +1556,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; - if (ret) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, - page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - done: if (ret < 0) mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); @@ -2314,11 +2328,8 @@ void extent_write_locked_range(struct inode *inode, const struct folio *locked_f if (ret == 1) goto next_page; - if (ret) { - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(BTRFS_I(inode), folio, - cur, cur_len, !ret); + if (ret) mapping_set_error(mapping, ret); - } btrfs_folio_end_lock(fs_info, folio, cur, cur_len); if (ret < 0) found_error = true;

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io()" failed to apply to 5.15-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.15-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(a)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-5.15.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020535-spender-graveness-c15e@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.15.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:56 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io() failed [BUG] If submit_one_sector() failed inside extent_writepage_io() for sector size < page size cases (e.g. 4K sector size and 64K page size), then we can hit double ordered extent accounting error. This should be very rare, as submit_one_sector() only fails when we failed to grab the extent map, and such extent map should exist inside the memory and has been pinned. [CAUSE] For example we have the following folio layout: 0 4K 32K 48K 60K 64K |//| |//////| |///| Where |///| is the dirty range we need to writeback. The 3 different dirty ranges are submitted for regular COW. Now we hit the following sequence: - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [0, 4K) - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [32K, 48K) - submit_one_sector() returned error for [60K, 64K) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() called for the whole folio This will mark the following ranges as finished: * [0, 4K) * [32K, 48K) Both ranges have their IO already submitted, this cleanup will lead to double accounting. * [60K, 64K) That's the correct cleanup. The only good news is, this error is only theoretical, as the target extent map is always pinned, thus we should directly grab it from memory, other than reading it from the disk. [FIX] Instead of calling btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the whole folio range, which can touch ranges we should not touch, instead move the error handling inside extent_writepage_io(). So that we can cleanup exact sectors that ought to be submitted but failed. This provides much more accurate cleanup, avoiding the double accounting. CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index bc2bd103c8cc..5014134b9aa2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1420,6 +1420,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; unsigned long range_bitmap = 0; bool submitted_io = false; + bool error = false; const u64 folio_start = folio_pos(folio); u64 cur; int bit; @@ -1462,11 +1463,26 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, break; } ret = submit_one_sector(inode, folio, cur, bio_ctrl, i_size); - if (ret < 0) - goto out; + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + /* + * bio_ctrl may contain a bio crossing several folios. + * Submit it immediately so that the bio has a chance + * to finish normally, other than marked as error. + */ + submit_one_bio(bio_ctrl); + /* + * Failed to grab the extent map which should be very rare. + * Since there is no bio submitted to finish the ordered + * extent, we have to manually finish this sector. + */ + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, cur, + fs_info->sectorsize, false); + error = true; + continue; + } submitted_io = true; } -out: + /* * If we didn't submitted any sector (>= i_size), folio dirty get * cleared but PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY is not cleared (only cleared @@ -1474,8 +1490,11 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * * Here we set writeback and clear for the range. If the full folio * is no longer dirty then we clear the PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY tag. + * + * If we hit any error, the corresponding sector will still be dirty + * thus no need to clear PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY. */ - if (!submitted_io) { + if (!submitted_io && !error) { btrfs_folio_set_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); btrfs_folio_clear_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); } @@ -1495,7 +1514,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl { struct btrfs_inode *inode = BTRFS_I(folio->mapping->host); struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; - const u64 page_start = folio_pos(folio); int ret; size_t pg_offset; loff_t i_size = i_size_read(&inode->vfs_inode); @@ -1538,10 +1556,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; - if (ret) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, - page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - done: if (ret < 0) mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); @@ -2314,11 +2328,8 @@ void extent_write_locked_range(struct inode *inode, const struct folio *locked_f if (ret == 1) goto next_page; - if (ret) { - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(BTRFS_I(inode), folio, - cur, cur_len, !ret); + if (ret) mapping_set_error(mapping, ret); - } btrfs_folio_end_lock(fs_info, folio, cur, cur_len); if (ret < 0) found_error = true;

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io()" failed to apply to 6.1-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 6.1-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(a)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-6.1.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020534-imposing-hacksaw-eff6@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.1.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:56 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io() failed [BUG] If submit_one_sector() failed inside extent_writepage_io() for sector size < page size cases (e.g. 4K sector size and 64K page size), then we can hit double ordered extent accounting error. This should be very rare, as submit_one_sector() only fails when we failed to grab the extent map, and such extent map should exist inside the memory and has been pinned. [CAUSE] For example we have the following folio layout: 0 4K 32K 48K 60K 64K |//| |//////| |///| Where |///| is the dirty range we need to writeback. The 3 different dirty ranges are submitted for regular COW. Now we hit the following sequence: - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [0, 4K) - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [32K, 48K) - submit_one_sector() returned error for [60K, 64K) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() called for the whole folio This will mark the following ranges as finished: * [0, 4K) * [32K, 48K) Both ranges have their IO already submitted, this cleanup will lead to double accounting. * [60K, 64K) That's the correct cleanup. The only good news is, this error is only theoretical, as the target extent map is always pinned, thus we should directly grab it from memory, other than reading it from the disk. [FIX] Instead of calling btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the whole folio range, which can touch ranges we should not touch, instead move the error handling inside extent_writepage_io(). So that we can cleanup exact sectors that ought to be submitted but failed. This provides much more accurate cleanup, avoiding the double accounting. CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index bc2bd103c8cc..5014134b9aa2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1420,6 +1420,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; unsigned long range_bitmap = 0; bool submitted_io = false; + bool error = false; const u64 folio_start = folio_pos(folio); u64 cur; int bit; @@ -1462,11 +1463,26 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, break; } ret = submit_one_sector(inode, folio, cur, bio_ctrl, i_size); - if (ret < 0) - goto out; + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + /* + * bio_ctrl may contain a bio crossing several folios. + * Submit it immediately so that the bio has a chance + * to finish normally, other than marked as error. + */ + submit_one_bio(bio_ctrl); + /* + * Failed to grab the extent map which should be very rare. + * Since there is no bio submitted to finish the ordered + * extent, we have to manually finish this sector. + */ + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, cur, + fs_info->sectorsize, false); + error = true; + continue; + } submitted_io = true; } -out: + /* * If we didn't submitted any sector (>= i_size), folio dirty get * cleared but PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY is not cleared (only cleared @@ -1474,8 +1490,11 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * * Here we set writeback and clear for the range. If the full folio * is no longer dirty then we clear the PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY tag. + * + * If we hit any error, the corresponding sector will still be dirty + * thus no need to clear PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY. */ - if (!submitted_io) { + if (!submitted_io && !error) { btrfs_folio_set_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); btrfs_folio_clear_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); } @@ -1495,7 +1514,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl { struct btrfs_inode *inode = BTRFS_I(folio->mapping->host); struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; - const u64 page_start = folio_pos(folio); int ret; size_t pg_offset; loff_t i_size = i_size_read(&inode->vfs_inode); @@ -1538,10 +1556,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; - if (ret) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, - page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - done: if (ret < 0) mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); @@ -2314,11 +2328,8 @@ void extent_write_locked_range(struct inode *inode, const struct folio *locked_f if (ret == 1) goto next_page; - if (ret) { - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(BTRFS_I(inode), folio, - cur, cur_len, !ret); + if (ret) mapping_set_error(mapping, ret); - } btrfs_folio_end_lock(fs_info, folio, cur, cur_len); if (ret < 0) found_error = true;

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io()" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-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(a)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-6.6.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020533-maturity-audacious-3a1f@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:56 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io() failed [BUG] If submit_one_sector() failed inside extent_writepage_io() for sector size < page size cases (e.g. 4K sector size and 64K page size), then we can hit double ordered extent accounting error. This should be very rare, as submit_one_sector() only fails when we failed to grab the extent map, and such extent map should exist inside the memory and has been pinned. [CAUSE] For example we have the following folio layout: 0 4K 32K 48K 60K 64K |//| |//////| |///| Where |///| is the dirty range we need to writeback. The 3 different dirty ranges are submitted for regular COW. Now we hit the following sequence: - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [0, 4K) - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [32K, 48K) - submit_one_sector() returned error for [60K, 64K) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() called for the whole folio This will mark the following ranges as finished: * [0, 4K) * [32K, 48K) Both ranges have their IO already submitted, this cleanup will lead to double accounting. * [60K, 64K) That's the correct cleanup. The only good news is, this error is only theoretical, as the target extent map is always pinned, thus we should directly grab it from memory, other than reading it from the disk. [FIX] Instead of calling btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the whole folio range, which can touch ranges we should not touch, instead move the error handling inside extent_writepage_io(). So that we can cleanup exact sectors that ought to be submitted but failed. This provides much more accurate cleanup, avoiding the double accounting. CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index bc2bd103c8cc..5014134b9aa2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1420,6 +1420,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; unsigned long range_bitmap = 0; bool submitted_io = false; + bool error = false; const u64 folio_start = folio_pos(folio); u64 cur; int bit; @@ -1462,11 +1463,26 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, break; } ret = submit_one_sector(inode, folio, cur, bio_ctrl, i_size); - if (ret < 0) - goto out; + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + /* + * bio_ctrl may contain a bio crossing several folios. + * Submit it immediately so that the bio has a chance + * to finish normally, other than marked as error. + */ + submit_one_bio(bio_ctrl); + /* + * Failed to grab the extent map which should be very rare. + * Since there is no bio submitted to finish the ordered + * extent, we have to manually finish this sector. + */ + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, cur, + fs_info->sectorsize, false); + error = true; + continue; + } submitted_io = true; } -out: + /* * If we didn't submitted any sector (>= i_size), folio dirty get * cleared but PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY is not cleared (only cleared @@ -1474,8 +1490,11 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * * Here we set writeback and clear for the range. If the full folio * is no longer dirty then we clear the PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY tag. + * + * If we hit any error, the corresponding sector will still be dirty + * thus no need to clear PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY. */ - if (!submitted_io) { + if (!submitted_io && !error) { btrfs_folio_set_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); btrfs_folio_clear_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); } @@ -1495,7 +1514,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl { struct btrfs_inode *inode = BTRFS_I(folio->mapping->host); struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; - const u64 page_start = folio_pos(folio); int ret; size_t pg_offset; loff_t i_size = i_size_read(&inode->vfs_inode); @@ -1538,10 +1556,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; - if (ret) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, - page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - done: if (ret < 0) mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); @@ -2314,11 +2328,8 @@ void extent_write_locked_range(struct inode *inode, const struct folio *locked_f if (ret == 1) goto next_page; - if (ret) { - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(BTRFS_I(inode), folio, - cur, cur_len, !ret); + if (ret) mapping_set_error(mapping, ret); - } btrfs_folio_end_lock(fs_info, folio, cur, cur_len); if (ret < 0) found_error = true;

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io()" failed to apply to 6.12-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 6.12-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(a)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-6.12.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.> git commit -s git send-email --to '<stable(a)vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2025020532-component-gratified-8153@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.12.y' HEAD^.. Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 8bf334beb3496da3c3fbf3daf3856f7eec70dacc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:43:56 +1030 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix double accounting race when extent_writepage_io() failed [BUG] If submit_one_sector() failed inside extent_writepage_io() for sector size < page size cases (e.g. 4K sector size and 64K page size), then we can hit double ordered extent accounting error. This should be very rare, as submit_one_sector() only fails when we failed to grab the extent map, and such extent map should exist inside the memory and has been pinned. [CAUSE] For example we have the following folio layout: 0 4K 32K 48K 60K 64K |//| |//////| |///| Where |///| is the dirty range we need to writeback. The 3 different dirty ranges are submitted for regular COW. Now we hit the following sequence: - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [0, 4K) - submit_one_sector() returned 0 for [32K, 48K) - submit_one_sector() returned error for [60K, 64K) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() called for the whole folio This will mark the following ranges as finished: * [0, 4K) * [32K, 48K) Both ranges have their IO already submitted, this cleanup will lead to double accounting. * [60K, 64K) That's the correct cleanup. The only good news is, this error is only theoretical, as the target extent map is always pinned, thus we should directly grab it from memory, other than reading it from the disk. [FIX] Instead of calling btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished() for the whole folio range, which can touch ranges we should not touch, instead move the error handling inside extent_writepage_io(). So that we can cleanup exact sectors that ought to be submitted but failed. This provides much more accurate cleanup, avoiding the double accounting. CC: stable(a)vger.kernel.org # 5.15+ Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu(a)suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba(a)suse.com> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c index bc2bd103c8cc..5014134b9aa2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c @@ -1420,6 +1420,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; unsigned long range_bitmap = 0; bool submitted_io = false; + bool error = false; const u64 folio_start = folio_pos(folio); u64 cur; int bit; @@ -1462,11 +1463,26 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, break; } ret = submit_one_sector(inode, folio, cur, bio_ctrl, i_size); - if (ret < 0) - goto out; + if (unlikely(ret < 0)) { + /* + * bio_ctrl may contain a bio crossing several folios. + * Submit it immediately so that the bio has a chance + * to finish normally, other than marked as error. + */ + submit_one_bio(bio_ctrl); + /* + * Failed to grab the extent map which should be very rare. + * Since there is no bio submitted to finish the ordered + * extent, we have to manually finish this sector. + */ + btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, cur, + fs_info->sectorsize, false); + error = true; + continue; + } submitted_io = true; } -out: + /* * If we didn't submitted any sector (>= i_size), folio dirty get * cleared but PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY is not cleared (only cleared @@ -1474,8 +1490,11 @@ static noinline_for_stack int extent_writepage_io(struct btrfs_inode *inode, * * Here we set writeback and clear for the range. If the full folio * is no longer dirty then we clear the PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY tag. + * + * If we hit any error, the corresponding sector will still be dirty + * thus no need to clear PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY. */ - if (!submitted_io) { + if (!submitted_io && !error) { btrfs_folio_set_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); btrfs_folio_clear_writeback(fs_info, folio, start, len); } @@ -1495,7 +1514,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl { struct btrfs_inode *inode = BTRFS_I(folio->mapping->host); struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = inode->root->fs_info; - const u64 page_start = folio_pos(folio); int ret; size_t pg_offset; loff_t i_size = i_size_read(&inode->vfs_inode); @@ -1538,10 +1556,6 @@ static int extent_writepage(struct folio *folio, struct btrfs_bio_ctrl *bio_ctrl bio_ctrl->wbc->nr_to_write--; - if (ret) - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(inode, folio, - page_start, PAGE_SIZE, !ret); - done: if (ret < 0) mapping_set_error(folio->mapping, ret); @@ -2314,11 +2328,8 @@ void extent_write_locked_range(struct inode *inode, const struct folio *locked_f if (ret == 1) goto next_page; - if (ret) { - btrfs_mark_ordered_io_finished(BTRFS_I(inode), folio, - cur, cur_len, !ret); + if (ret) mapping_set_error(mapping, ret); - } btrfs_folio_end_lock(fs_info, folio, cur, cur_len); if (ret < 0) found_error = true;

6 months, 1 week

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Linux-stable-mirror February 2025