| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20191003154522.680688344@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:54:23 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 185/185] Btrfs: fix race setting up and completing qgroup rescan workers
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
[ Upstream commit 13fc1d271a2e3ab8a02071e711add01fab9271f6 ]
There is a race between setting up a qgroup rescan worker and completing
a qgroup rescan worker that can lead to callers of the qgroup rescan wait
ioctl to either not wait for the rescan worker to complete or to hang
forever due to missing wake ups. The following diagram shows a sequence
of steps that illustrates the race.
CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
btrfs_ioctl_quota_rescan()
btrfs_qgroup_rescan()
qgroup_rescan_init()
mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock)
spin_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock)
fs_info->qgroup_flags |=
BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN
init_completion(
&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion)
fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running = true
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock)
spin_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock)
btrfs_init_work()
--> starts the worker
btrfs_qgroup_rescan_worker()
mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock)
fs_info->qgroup_flags &=
~BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock)
starts transaction, updates qgroup status
item, etc
btrfs_ioctl_quota_rescan()
btrfs_qgroup_rescan()
qgroup_rescan_init()
mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock)
spin_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock)
fs_info->qgroup_flags |=
BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN
init_completion(
&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion)
fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running = true
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock)
spin_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock)
btrfs_init_work()
--> starts another worker
mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock)
fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running = false
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock)
complete_all(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion)
Before the rescan worker started by the task at CPU 3 completes, if
another task calls btrfs_ioctl_quota_rescan(), it will get -EINPROGRESS
because the flag BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN is set at
fs_info->qgroup_flags, which is expected and correct behaviour.
However if other task calls btrfs_ioctl_quota_rescan_wait() before the
rescan worker started by the task at CPU 3 completes, it will return
immediately without waiting for the new rescan worker to complete,
because fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running is set to false by CPU 2.
This race is making test case btrfs/171 (from fstests) to fail often:
btrfs/171 9s ... - output mismatch (see /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/171.out.bad)
# --- tests/btrfs/171.out 2018-09-16 21:30:48.505104287 +0100
# +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/171.out.bad 2019-09-19 02:01:36.938486039 +0100
# @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
# QA output created by 171
# +ERROR: quota rescan failed: Operation now in progress
# Silence is golden
# ...
# (Run 'diff -u /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/tests/btrfs/171.out /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests/results//btrfs/171.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
That is because the test calls the btrfs-progs commands "qgroup quota
rescan -w", "qgroup assign" and "qgroup remove" in a sequence that makes
calls to the rescan start ioctl fail with -EINPROGRESS (note the "btrfs"
commands 'qgroup assign' and 'qgroup remove' often call the rescan start
ioctl after calling the qgroup assign ioctl,
btrfs_ioctl_qgroup_assign()), since previous waits didn't actually wait
for a rescan worker to complete.
Another problem the race can cause is missing wake ups for waiters,
since the call to complete_all() happens outside a critical section and
after clearing the flag BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN. In the sequence
diagram above, if we have a waiter for the first rescan task (executed
by CPU 2), then fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion.wait is not empty, and
if after the rescan worker clears BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN and
before it calls complete_all() against
fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion, the task at CPU 3 calls
init_completion() against fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion which
re-initilizes its wait queue to an empty queue, therefore causing the
rescan worker at CPU 2 to call complete_all() against an empty queue,
never waking up the task waiting for that rescan worker.
Fix this by clearing BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN and setting
fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running to false in the same critical section,
delimited by the mutex fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock, as well as doing the
call to complete_all() in that same critical section. This gives the
protection needed to avoid rescan wait ioctl callers not waiting for a
running rescan worker and the lost wake ups problem, since setting that
rescan flag and boolean as well as initializing the wait queue is done
already in a critical section delimited by that mutex (at
qgroup_rescan_init()).
Fixes: 57254b6ebce4ce ("Btrfs: add ioctl to wait for qgroup rescan completion")
Fixes: d2c609b834d62f ("btrfs: properly track when rescan worker is running")
CC: stable@...r.kernel.org # 4.4+
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
@@ -2645,9 +2645,6 @@ out:
btrfs_free_path(path);
mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
- if (!btrfs_fs_closing(fs_info))
- fs_info->qgroup_flags &= ~BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN;
-
if (err > 0 &&
fs_info->qgroup_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_INCONSISTENT) {
fs_info->qgroup_flags &= ~BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_INCONSISTENT;
@@ -2663,16 +2660,30 @@ out:
trans = btrfs_start_transaction(fs_info->quota_root, 1);
if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
err = PTR_ERR(trans);
+ trans = NULL;
btrfs_err(fs_info,
"fail to start transaction for status update: %d",
err);
- goto done;
}
- ret = update_qgroup_status_item(trans);
- if (ret < 0) {
- err = ret;
- btrfs_err(fs_info, "fail to update qgroup status: %d", err);
+
+ mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
+ if (!btrfs_fs_closing(fs_info))
+ fs_info->qgroup_flags &= ~BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN;
+ if (trans) {
+ ret = update_qgroup_status_item(trans);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ err = ret;
+ btrfs_err(fs_info, "fail to update qgroup status: %d",
+ err);
+ }
}
+ fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running = false;
+ complete_all(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion);
+ mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
+
+ if (!trans)
+ return;
+
btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
if (btrfs_fs_closing(fs_info)) {
@@ -2683,12 +2694,6 @@ out:
} else {
btrfs_err(fs_info, "qgroup scan failed with %d", err);
}
-
-done:
- mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
- fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running = false;
- mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
- complete_all(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_completion);
}
/*
Powered by blists - more mailing lists