All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Martin Svec <martin.svec@zoner.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: fix up quotacheck buffer list error handling
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 14:38:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170407183806.GE55851@bfoster.bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170407182042.GM4864@birch.djwong.org>

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 11:20:42AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:02:30AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:39:21PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 02:53:19PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > The quotacheck error handling of the delwri buffer list assumes the
> > > > resident buffers are locked and doesn't clear the _XBF_DELWRI_Q flag
> > > > on the buffers that are dequeued. This can lead to assert failures
> > > > on buffer release and possibly other locking problems.
> > > > 
> > > > Update the error handling code to lock each buffer as it is removed
> > > > from the buffer list and clear the delwri queue flag.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 ++
> > > >  fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c  | 2 ++
> > > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > > index ac3b4db..e566510 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > > @@ -1078,6 +1078,8 @@ void
> > > >  xfs_buf_unlock(
> > > >  	struct xfs_buf		*bp)
> > > >  {
> > > > +	ASSERT(xfs_buf_islocked(bp));
> > > > +
> > > >  	XB_CLEAR_OWNER(bp);
> > > >  	up(&bp->b_sema);
> > > >  
> > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c
> > > > index b669b12..4ff993c 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c
> > > > @@ -1387,6 +1387,8 @@ xfs_qm_quotacheck(
> > > >  	while (!list_empty(&buffer_list)) {
> > > >  		struct xfs_buf *bp =
> > > >  			list_first_entry(&buffer_list, struct xfs_buf, b_list);
> > > > +		xfs_buf_lock(bp);
> > > > +		bp->b_flags &= ~_XBF_DELWRI_Q;
> > > >  		list_del_init(&bp->b_list);
> > > >  		xfs_buf_relse(bp);
> > > 
> > > Hmm, was this the only place we ever _buf_unlock'd an unlocked buffer?
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm not aware of any other places (otherwise I would try to fix them :).
> > Or perhaps I'm not following the question...
> > 
> > I do recall a similar problem with flush locks fixed in commit 98efe8a
> > ("xfs: fix unbalanced inode reclaim flush locking").
> 
> So... the previous quotacheck code reads the buffer, fiddles with it,
> and _buf_relse's the buffer, which unlocks it.  When we end up in this
> error path, we've previously been unlocking an already unlocked buffer,
> right?  So have we just been screwing up the semaphore all this time and
> just never noticed because quotacheck probably doesn't fail all that
> often?  I think it's a good idea (in general) to check for unlocking
> buffers that are already unlocked, but I worry about the side effects.
> 

Pretty much...

> Granted, if there /are/ other places in the regular code path where we
> screw up the buffer locking I imagine we'd have noticed; and if there
> are bugs lurking, better to ASSERT them into the light.  I ran the
> auto group and didn't see anything, so perhaps we're ok enough?
> 

IME, we don't get very far after screwing up mechanisms critical to core
functionality such as a buffer lock or flush lock, at least with asserts
enabled. The new assert just makes the problem more obvious rather than
having to backtrack from a more vague error or crash and locate an
unbalanced locking pattern. This and the other example mentioned above
both occur in rare error/shutdown cases.

Brian

> --D
> 
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> > > --D
> > > 
> > > >  	}
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.7.4
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-07 18:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-24 19:53 [PATCH v2 0/3] xfs: quotacheck vs. dquot reclaim deadlock Brian Foster
2017-02-24 19:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: fix up quotacheck buffer list error handling Brian Foster
2017-04-06 22:39   ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-04-07 12:02     ` Brian Foster
2017-04-07 18:20       ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-04-07 18:38         ` Brian Foster [this message]
2017-04-10  4:18   ` Dave Chinner
2017-04-10 14:13     ` Brian Foster
2017-02-24 19:53 ` [PATCH 2/3] xfs: push buffer of flush locked dquot to avoid quotacheck deadlock Brian Foster
2017-04-06 22:34   ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-04-07 12:06     ` Brian Foster
2017-04-07 20:07       ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-04-10 14:19         ` Brian Foster
2017-04-10  5:00   ` Dave Chinner
2017-04-10 14:15     ` Brian Foster
2017-04-10 23:55       ` Dave Chinner
2017-04-11 14:53         ` Brian Foster
2017-04-18  2:35           ` Dave Chinner
2017-04-18 13:55             ` Brian Foster
2017-04-19  2:46               ` Dave Chinner
2017-04-19 19:55                 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-04-19 20:46                   ` Brian Foster
2017-04-21 12:18                     ` Brian Foster
2017-04-19 20:40                 ` Brian Foster
2017-04-11 12:50     ` Brian Foster
2017-02-24 19:53 ` [PATCH 3/3] [RFC] xfs: release buffer list after quotacheck buf reset Brian Foster

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=20170407183806.GE55851@bfoster.bfoster \
    --to=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.svec@zoner.cz \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: fix up quotacheck buffer list error handling' \
    /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

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.