[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150709234012.GI3902@dastard>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:40:12 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, bfields@...ldses.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: Prevent syncing frozen file system
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 07:45:45PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> Currently we can end up in a deadlock because of broken
> sb_start_write -> s_umount ordering.
>
> The race goes like this:
>
> - write the file
> - unlink the file - final_iput will not be calles as file is opened
> - freeze the file system
> - Now simultaneously close the file and call sync (or syncfs on that
> particular file system). Sync will get to wait_sb_inodes() where it will
> grab the referece to the inode (__iget()) and later to call iput().
This problem goes away with the sync scalability patchset that josef
has been trying to get merged:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git superblock-scaling
That patchset removes the full sb inodes list walk in
wait_sb_inodes() and replaces it with a walk of inodes cleaned
during the sync, which will be an empty list in the case of sync
running on an empty filesystem. This commit does the work:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/josef/btrfs-next.git/commit/?h=superblock-scaling&id=9bea30d5f4521db674203f365b1e0970588b2650
<As a separate note, can we *please* get that patchset merged given
that there are now several outstanding issues that it fixes in one
go?>
> If we manage to close the file and drop the reference in between those
> calls sync will attempt to do a iput_final() because the inode is now
> unlinked and we're holding the last reference to it. This will
> however block on a frozen file system (ext4_delete_inode for
> example).
>
> Note that I've not been able to reproduce the issue, I've only seen this
> happen once. However with some instrumentation (like msleep() in the
> wait_sb_inodes() it can be achieved.
>
> Fix this by properly doing sb_start_write/sb_end_write to prevent us
> from fsfreeze.
>
> Note that with this patch syncfs will block on the frozen file system
> which is probably ok, but sync will block if any file system happens to
> be frozen - not sure if that's a problem, but it's certainly different
> from what we've been used to.
sync should not block on frozen fileystems. By definition, a frozen
filesystem is a clean filesystem, and so sync should really just be
skipping over them.
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -514,10 +514,17 @@ void iterate_supers(void (*f)(struct super_block *, void *), void *arg)
> sb->s_count++;
> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>
> + /*
> + * Whatever we're going to do to the file system we have to
> + * make sure that we'll not end up blocking on frozen file
> + * system.
> + */
> + sb_start_write(sb);
> down_read(&sb->s_umount);
> if (sb->s_root && (sb->s_flags & MS_BORN))
> f(sb, arg);
> up_read(&sb->s_umount);
> + sb_end_write(sb);
>
> spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> if (p)
That deadlocks sysrq-j (emergency thaw)...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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