[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150217184415.GA3297@mew>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:44:15 -0800
From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
To: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: handle race on ENOMEM in alloc_extent_buffer
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:51:08AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> Consider the following interleaving of overlapping calls to
> alloc_extent_buffer:
>
> Call 1:
>
> - Successfully allocates a few pages with find_or_create_page
> - find_or_create_page fails, goto free_eb
> - Unlocks the allocated pages
>
> Call 2:
> - Calls find_or_create_page and gets a page in call 1's extent_buffer
> - Finds that the page is already associated with an extent_buffer
> - Grabs a reference to the half-written extent_buffer and calls
> mark_extent_buffer_accessed on it
>
> mark_extent_buffer_accessed will then try to call mark_page_accessed on
> a null page and panic.
>
> The fix is to clear page->private of the half-written extent_buffer's
> pages all at once while holding mapping->private_lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
[snip]
Actually, I just realized that there's a simpler fix. I can resend the
whole series for easier merging once I get some review, but for now,
here's what I'm talking about:
btrfs: handle race on ENOMEM in alloc_extent_buffer
Consider the following interleaving of overlapping calls to
alloc_extent_buffer:
Call 1:
- Successfully allocates a few pages with find_or_create_page
- find_or_create_page fails, goto free_eb
- Unlocks the allocated pages
Call 2:
- Calls find_or_create_page and gets a page in call 1's extent_buffer
- Finds that the page is already associated with an extent_buffer
- Grabs a reference to the half-written extent_buffer and calls
mark_extent_buffer_accessed on it
mark_extent_buffer_accessed will then try to call mark_page_accessed on
a null page and panic.
The fix is to decrement the reference count on the half-written
extent_buffer before unlocking the pages so call 2 won't use it. We also
set exists = NULL in the case that we don't use exists to avoid
accidentally returning a freed extent_buffer in an error case.
Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
---
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
index 790dbae..6b3cd72 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
@@ -4850,6 +4850,7 @@ struct extent_buffer *alloc_extent_buffer(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
mark_extent_buffer_accessed(exists, p);
goto free_eb;
}
+ exists = NULL;
/*
* Do this so attach doesn't complain and we need to
@@ -4913,12 +4914,12 @@ again:
return eb;
free_eb:
+ WARN_ON(!atomic_dec_and_test(&eb->refs));
for (i = 0; i < num_pages; i++) {
if (eb->pages[i])
unlock_page(eb->pages[i]);
}
- WARN_ON(!atomic_dec_and_test(&eb->refs));
btrfs_release_extent_buffer(eb);
return exists;
}
--
Omar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists