| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:25:13 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing
between GC and DIO
On 2016/7/7 6:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 10:10:57AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2016/7/6 8:24, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016/7/1 8:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chao,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:42:48PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
>>>>>> face race case as below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For write case:
>>>>>> Thread A Thread B
>>>>>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>>>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>>>>> - f2fs_direct_IO
>>>>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>>>>> - do_direct_IO
>>>>>> - get_more_blocks
>>>>>> - f2fs_gc
>>>>>> - do_garbage_collect
>>>>>> - gc_data_segment
>>>>>> - move_data_page
>>>>>> - do_write_data_page
>>>>>> migrate data block to new block address
>>>>>> - dio_bio_submit
>>>>>> update user data to old block address
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For read case:
>>>>>> Thread A Thread B
>>>>>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>>>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>>>>> - f2fs_direct_IO
>>>>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>>>>> - do_direct_IO
>>>>>> - get_more_blocks
>>>>>> - f2fs_balance_fs
>>>>>> - f2fs_gc
>>>>>> - do_garbage_collect
>>>>>> - gc_data_segment
>>>>>> - move_data_page
>>>>>> - do_write_data_page
>>>>>> migrate data block to new block address
>>>>>> - write_checkpoint
>>>>>> - do_checkpoint
>>>>>> - clear_prefree_segments
>>>>>> - f2fs_issue_discard
>>>>>> discard old block adress
>>>>>> - dio_bio_submit
>>>>>> update user buffer from obsolete block address
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
>>>>>> against with each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 ++
>>>>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
>>>>>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>>>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 +
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>> index ba4963f..08dc060 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>> @@ -1716,7 +1716,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>>>> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>>>
>>>>> This means we need to sacrifice entire parallism even in the normal cases?
>>>>> Can we find another way?
>>>>
>>>> 1. For dio write vs dio write, writer will grab i_mutex before dio_mutex, so
>>>> anyway, concurrent dio writes will be exclusive.
>>>>
>>>> 2. For dio write vs gc, keep using dio_mutex for making them exclusive.
>>>>
>>>> 3. For dio read vs dio read, and dio read vs gc, what about adding dio_rwsem to
>>>> control the parallelism?
>>>>
>>>> 4. For dio write vs dio read, we grab different lock (write grabs dio_mutex,
>>>> read grabs dio_rwsem), so there is no race condition.
>>>
>>> How about adding a flag in a dio inode and avoiding GCs for there-in blocks?
>>
>> Hmm.. IMO, without lock, it's hard to keep the sequence that let GC checking the
>> flag after setting it, right?
>
> Okay, could you add dio_rwsem for now?
> Later, we may need to take a look at dio_overwrite case to mitigate inode_lock
> contention likewise xfs. :)
Sounds good if we can support concurrent overwrite dio! :)
Let me send v3.
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
>>>>>> if (err > 0)
>>>>>> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>> index bd82b6d..a241576 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
>>>>>> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
>>>>>> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */
>>>>>> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */
>>>>>> + struct mutex dio_mutex; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>>>> index c2c4ac3..98e3763 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>>>> @@ -744,12 +744,24 @@ next_step:
>>>>>> /* phase 3 */
>>>>>> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
>>>>>> if (inode) {
>>>>>> + bool locked = false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
>>>>>> + if (!mutex_trylock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex))
>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>> + locked = true;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
>>>>>> + ofs_in_node;
>>>>>> - if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>>>>> + if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) &&
>>>>>> + S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>>>>> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
>>>>>> + if (locked)
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>> index 8c698e1..24aab3f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>> @@ -575,6 +575,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
>>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
>>>>>> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
>>>>>> + mutex_init(&fi->dio_mutex);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* Will be used by directory only */
>>>>>> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.8.2.311.gee88674
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists