[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49BE6A55.9040406@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:03:49 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix bb_prealloc_list corruption due to wrong group locking
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:57:45PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> This is for Red Hat bug 490026,
>> EXT4 panic, list corruption in ext4_mb_new_inode_pa
>>
>> (this was on backported ext4 from 2.6.29)
>>
>> We hit a BUG() in __list_add from ext4_mb_new_inode_pa()
>> because the list head pointed to a removed item:
>>
>> list_add corruption. next->prev should be ffff81042f2fe158,
>> but was 0000000000200200
>>
>> (0000000000200200 is LIST_POISON2, set when the item is deleted)
>>
>> ext4_lock_group(sb, group) is supposed to protect this list for
>> each group, and a common code flow is this:
>>
>> ext4_get_group_no_and_offset(sb, pa->pa_pstart, &grp, NULL);
>> ext4_lock_group(sb, grp);
>> list_del(&pa->pa_group_list);
>> ext4_unlock_group(sb, grp);
>>
>> so its critical that we get the right group number back for
>> this pa->pa_pstart block.
>>
>> however, ext4_mb_put_pa passes in (pa->pa_pstart - 1) with a
>> comment, "-1 is to protect from crossing allocation group"
>>
>> Other list-manipulators do not use the "-1" so we have the
>> potential to lock the wrong group and race. Given how the
>> ext4_get_group_no_and_offset() function works, it doesn't seem
>> to me that the subtraction is correct.
>>
>> I've not been able to reproduce the bug, so this is by inspection.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> @@ -3603,8 +3603,7 @@ static void ext4_mb_put_pa(struct ext4_a
>> pa->pa_deleted = 1;
>> spin_unlock(&pa->pa_lock);
>>
>> - /* -1 is to protect from crossing allocation group */
>> - ext4_get_group_no_and_offset(sb, pa->pa_pstart - 1, &grp, NULL);
>> + ext4_get_group_no_and_offset(sb, pa->pa_pstart, &grp, NULL);
>>
>> /*
>> * possible race:
>>
>
>
> But the change is needed for lg prealloc space because locality group
> prealloc reduce pa_pstart on block allocation and once fully allocated
> pa_pstart can point to the next block group.
Right, that's what I followed up with Friday, missed it the first go-round.
> But what you found is also
> correct for inode prealloc space. I guess the code broke due to FLEX_BG
> because without FLEX_BG pa_pstart will never be the first block in the
> group so even for inode prealloc space pa_pstart - 1 would be in the
> same group.
Hm, so for inode it's initialized as:
pa->pa_pstart = ext4_grp_offs_to_block(sb, &ac->ac_b_ex);
regardless of flex? well, anyway...
You may want to do
<aneesh's patch moving the grp calculation>
The only thing I don't like about that is we're calculating grp a lot
when we don't actually need it. How about just:
Index: linux-2.6/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ linux-2.6/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -3603,8 +3603,11 @@ static void ext4_mb_put_pa(struct ext4_a
pa->pa_deleted = 1;
spin_unlock(&pa->pa_lock);
- /* -1 is to protect from crossing allocation group */
- ext4_get_group_no_and_offset(sb, pa->pa_pstart - 1, &grp, NULL);
+ /* If linear, pa_pstart is in next block group when used up */
+ if (pa->pa_linear)
+ pa->pa_pstart--;
+
+ ext4_get_group_no_and_offset(sb, pa->pa_pstart, &grp, NULL);
/*
* possible race:
-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists