From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-btrfs-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8450C432BE
	for <linux-btrfs@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  1 Sep 2021 00:50:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D84361054
	for <linux-btrfs@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed,  1 Sep 2021 00:50:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S241226AbhIAAvS (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-btrfs@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 31 Aug 2021 20:51:18 -0400
Received: from eu-shark2.inbox.eu ([195.216.236.82]:46004 "EHLO
        eu-shark2.inbox.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S231509AbhIAAvR (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 31 Aug 2021 20:51:17 -0400
Received: from eu-shark2.inbox.eu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by eu-shark2-out.inbox.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E001E0067C;
        Wed,  1 Sep 2021 03:50:20 +0300 (EEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=inbox.eu; s=20140211;
        t=1630457420; bh=6YiV5FS/0CHJLYAtl6BfhQE7dE7+U8xZO61WnABEO6k=;
        h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to;
        b=q+DuZanO4ZOQiV7/qL7t41kDgFgNBq2sZGvmKXb+VFWwxTW0AyZ2SiZQFOJwDZPdF
         LKBba+lWk893bPYqlcBsEozMbu7rQdB01ETvBLR5rZJbjEiOTcL41qgTfv8J2xZktM
         WAe9oM/G+pKJjeqTElFZb2uhUW080u0fqD6bPb78=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by eu-shark2-in.inbox.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED521E00676;
        Wed,  1 Sep 2021 03:50:20 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from eu-shark2.inbox.eu ([127.0.0.1])
        by localhost (eu-shark2.inbox.eu [127.0.0.1]) (spamfilter, port 35)
        with ESMTP id dcZ2qIWoPolG; Wed,  1 Sep 2021 03:50:20 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from mail.inbox.eu (eu-pop1 [127.0.0.1])
        by eu-shark2-in.inbox.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F2B1E00668;
        Wed,  1 Sep 2021 03:50:20 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from nas (unknown [49.65.73.48])
        (Authenticated sender: l@damenly.su)
        by mail.inbox.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 46AF21BE00BA;
        Wed,  1 Sep 2021 03:50:18 +0300 (EEST)
References: <cover.1630370459.git.anand.jain@oracle.com>
 <215cb0c88d2b84557f8ec27e3f03c1c188df2935.1630370459.git.anand.jain@oracle.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.7.0; emacs 27.2
From:   Su Yue <l@damenly.su>
To:     Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, dsterba@suse.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/2] btrfs: fix lockdep warning while mounting sprout fs
Date:   Wed, 01 Sep 2021 08:49:24 +0800
In-reply-to: <215cb0c88d2b84557f8ec27e3f03c1c188df2935.1630370459.git.anand.jain@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <o89dp1a2.fsf@damenly.su>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
X-ESPOL: 6N1ml5Y9aTPX9ELYI3baDBgxqjROX/Ph8/vYpBBYmnv7MyaHf0wLTGPJkCwpDWA=
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org


On Tue 31 Aug 2021 at 09:21, Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> 
wrote:

> Following test case reproduces lockdep warning.
>
>  Test case:
>
>  $ mkfs.btrfs -f <dev1>
>  $ btrfstune -S 1 <dev1>
>  $ mount <dev1> <mnt>
>  $ btrfs device add <dev2> <mnt> -f
>  $ umount <mnt>
>  $ mount <dev2> <mnt>
>  $ umount <mnt>
>
> The warning claims a possible ABBA deadlock between the threads 
> initiated by
> [#1] btrfs device add and [#0] the mount.
>
> ======================================================
> [ 540.743122] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency 
> detected
> [ 540.743129] 5.11.0-rc7+ #5 Not tainted
> [ 540.743135] 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> [ 540.743142] mount/2515 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 540.743149] ffffa0c5544c2ce0 
> (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: 
> clone_fs_devices+0x6d/0x210 [btrfs]
> [ 540.743458] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 540.743461] ffffa0c54a7932b8 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{4:4}, at: 
> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x200 [btrfs]
> [ 540.743541] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 540.743543] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) 
> is:
>
> [ 540.743546] -> #1 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{4:4}:
> [ 540.743566] down_read_nested+0x48/0x2b0
> [ 540.743585] __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x200 [btrfs]
> [ 540.743650] btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x70/0x200 [btrfs]
> [ 540.743733] btrfs_search_slot+0x6c6/0xe00 [btrfs]
> [ 540.743785] btrfs_update_device+0x83/0x260 [btrfs]
> [ 540.743849] btrfs_finish_chunk_alloc+0x13f/0x660 [btrfs] <--- 
> device_list_mutex
> [ 540.743911] btrfs_create_pending_block_groups+0x18d/0x3f0 
> [btrfs]
> [ 540.743982] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x86/0x1260 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744037] btrfs_init_new_device+0x1600/0x1dd0 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744101] btrfs_ioctl+0x1c77/0x24c0 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744166] __x64_sys_ioctl+0xe4/0x140
> [ 540.744170] do_syscall_64+0x4b/0x80
> [ 540.744174] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>
> [ 540.744180] -> #0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}:
> [ 540.744184] __lock_acquire+0x155f/0x2360
> [ 540.744188] lock_acquire+0x10b/0x5c0
> [ 540.744190] __mutex_lock+0xb1/0xf80
> [ 540.744193] mutex_lock_nested+0x27/0x30
> [ 540.744196] clone_fs_devices+0x6d/0x210 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744270] btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x3c7/0xbb0 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744336] open_ctree+0xf6e/0x2074 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744406] btrfs_mount_root.cold.72+0x16/0x127 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744472] legacy_get_tree+0x38/0x90
> [ 540.744475] vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x140
> [ 540.744478] fc_mount+0x16/0x60
> [ 540.744482] vfs_kern_mount+0x91/0x100
> [ 540.744484] btrfs_mount+0x1e6/0x670 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744536] legacy_get_tree+0x38/0x90
> [ 540.744537] vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x140
> [ 540.744539] path_mount+0x8d8/0x1070
> [ 540.744541] do_mount+0x8d/0xc0
> [ 540.744543] __x64_sys_mount+0x125/0x160
> [ 540.744545] do_syscall_64+0x4b/0x80
> [ 540.744547] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>
> [ 540.744551] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 540.744552] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [ 540.744553] CPU0 				CPU1
> [ 540.744554] ---- 				----
> [ 540.744555] lock(btrfs-chunk-00);
> [ 540.744557] 
> lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
> [ 540.744560] 					lock(btrfs-chunk-00);
> [ 540.744562] lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
> [ 540.744564]
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> [ 540.744565] 3 locks held by mount/2515:
> [ 540.744567] #0: ffffa0c56bf7a0e0 
> (&type->s_umount_key#42/1){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: 
> alloc_super.isra.16+0xdf/0x450
> [ 540.744574] #1: ffffffffc05a9628 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: 
> btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x63/0xbb0 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744640] #2: ffffa0c54a7932b8 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{4:4}, 
> at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x200 [btrfs]
> [ 540.744708]
>  stack backtrace:
> [ 540.744712] CPU: 2 PID: 2515 Comm: mount Not tainted 
> 5.11.0-rc7+ #5
>
> But the device_list_mutex in clone_fs_devices() is redundant, as 
> explained
> below.
> Two threads [1]  and [2] (below) could lead to 
> clone_fs_device().
>
> [1]
> open_ctree <== mount sprout fs
>  btrfs_read_chunk_tree()
>   mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex) <== global lock
>   read_one_dev()
>    open_seed_devices()
>     clone_fs_devices() <== seed fs_devices
>      mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex) <== seed fs_devices
>
> [2]
> btrfs_init_new_device() <== sprouting
>  mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex); <== global lock
>  btrfs_prepare_sprout()
>    lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex)
>    clone_fs_devices(seed_fs_device) <== seed fs_devices
>
> Both of these threads hold uuid_mutex which is sufficient to 
> protect
> getting the seed device(s) freed while we are trying to clone it 
> for
> sprouting [2] or mounting a sprout [1] (as above). A mounted 
> seed
> device can not free/write/replace because it is read-only. An 
> unmounted
> seed device can free by btrfs_free_stale_devices(), but it needs 
> uuid_mutex.
> So this patch removes the unnecessary device_list_mutex in 
> clone_fs_devices().
> And adds a lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex) in 
> clone_fs_devices().
>
> Reported-by: Su Yue <l@damenly.su>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
>

Tested-by: Su Yue <l@damenly.su>

--
Su
> ---
> v5: Vet test case in the changelog.
> v2: Remove Martin's Reported-by and Tested-by.
>     Add Su's Reported-by.
>     Add lockdep_assert_held check.
>     Update the changelog, make it relevant to the current 
>     misc-next
>
>  fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index abdc392f6ef9..fa9fe47b5b68 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -558,6 +558,8 @@ static int btrfs_free_stale_devices(const 
> char *path,
>  	struct btrfs_device *device, *tmp_device;
>  	int ret = 0;
>
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex);
> +
>  	if (path)
>  		ret = -ENOENT;
>
> @@ -988,11 +990,12 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices 
> *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig)
>  	struct btrfs_device *orig_dev;
>  	int ret = 0;
>
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex);
> +
>  	fs_devices = alloc_fs_devices(orig->fsid, NULL);
>  	if (IS_ERR(fs_devices))
>  		return fs_devices;
>
> -	mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex);
>  	fs_devices->total_devices = orig->total_devices;
>
>  	list_for_each_entry(orig_dev, &orig->devices, dev_list) {
> @@ -1024,10 +1027,8 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices 
> *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig)
>  		device->fs_devices = fs_devices;
>  		fs_devices->num_devices++;
>  	}
> -	mutex_unlock(&orig->device_list_mutex);
>  	return fs_devices;
>  error:
> -	mutex_unlock(&orig->device_list_mutex);
>  	free_fs_devices(fs_devices);
>  	return ERR_PTR(ret);
>  }