linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: block-group.c: Fix suspicious RCU usage warning

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200306195323.GE60713@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 14:53:23 -0500
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     dsterba@...e.cz,
        Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>,
        Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@....com>, clm@...com,
        josef@...icpanda.com, dsterba@...e.com,
        linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
        frextrite@...il.com, linux@...ck-us.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: btrfs: block-group.c: Fix suspicious RCU usage
 warning

On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:25:27PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 07:30:24PM +0530, Madhuparna Bhowmik wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 03:16:53PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2020/3/6 下午2:52, madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com wrote:
> > > > From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
> > > > 
> > > > The space_info list is rcu protected.
> > > > Hence, it should be traversed with rcu_read_lock held.
> > > > 
> > > > Warning:
> > > > [   29.104591] =============================
> > > > [   29.104756] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > > > [   29.105046] 5.6.0-rc4-next-20200305 #1 Not tainted
> > > > [   29.105231] -----------------------------
> > > > [   29.105401] fs/btrfs/block-group.c:2011 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> > > > index 404e050ce8ee..9cabeef66f5b 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> > > > @@ -1987,6 +1987,7 @@ int btrfs_read_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info)
> > > 
> > > This function is only triggered at mount time, where no other rcu
> > > operation can happen.
> > >
> > Thanks Qu.
> > 
> > Joel and Paul, what should we do in this case?
> > Should we just pass cond = true or use list_for_each_entry instead?
> 
> I think we can afford to add rcu lock/unlock, even if it's not strictly
> necessary due to the single threaded context where the function is run.
> There are some lightweight operations inside and inc_block_group starts
> with two spin locks so there's nothing we'd be losing with disabled
> preemption from the caller.

I think use list_for_each_entry().

thanks,

 - Joel