linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: transaction: Fix misplaced barrier in btrfs_record_root_in

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: <CABdVr8QLZ7vHh=Prt_W0LLOLMMJQJySyjZ3cw04HR7O4nfq1_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 13:45:16 +1000
From:   Baptiste Lepers <baptiste.lepers@...il.com>
To:     dsterba@...e.cz, Baptiste Lepers <baptiste.lepers@...il.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: transaction: Fix misplaced barrier in btrfs_record_root_in_trans

Just curious about the status of this patch. :) Let me know if you
need further information.

Thanks!

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:44 AM Baptiste Lepers
<baptiste.lepers@...il.com> wrote:
>
> No, they need to be between the reads to have an effect. See
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt §SMP
> BARRIER PAIRING ("When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions..."). You
> will see that the barriers are always between the ordered reads and
> not before.
>
> I think that Paul, the barrier guru, can confirm that the barrier was
> misplaced in the original code? :)
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:43 AM Baptiste Lepers
> <baptiste.lepers@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 10:27 PM David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 11:25:59AM +1000, Baptiste Lepers wrote:
> >> > Per comment, record_root_in_trans orders the writes of the root->state
> >> > and root->last_trans:
> >> >       set_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_IN_TRANS_SETUP, &root->state);
> >> >       smp_wmb();
> >> >       root->last_trans = trans->transid;
> >> >
> >> > But the barrier that enforces the order on the read side is misplaced:
> >> >      smp_rmb(); <-- misplaced
> >> >      if (root->last_trans == trans->transid &&
> >> >     <-- missing barrier here -->
> >> >             !test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_IN_TRANS_SETUP, &root->state))
> >> >
> >> > This patches fixes the ordering and wraps the racy accesses with
> >> > READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE calls to avoid load/store tearing.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: 7585717f304f5 ("Btrfs: fix relocation races")
> >> > Signed-off-by: Baptiste Lepers <baptiste.lepers@...il.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 7 ++++---
> >> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >> > index 14b9fdc8aaa9..a609222e6704 100644
> >> > --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >> > @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ static int record_root_in_trans(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >> >                                  (unsigned long)root->root_key.objectid,
> >> >                                  BTRFS_ROOT_TRANS_TAG);
> >> >               spin_unlock(&fs_info->fs_roots_radix_lock);
> >> > -             root->last_trans = trans->transid;
> >> > +             WRITE_ONCE(root->last_trans, trans->transid);
> >> >
> >> >               /* this is pretty tricky.  We don't want to
> >> >                * take the relocation lock in btrfs_record_root_in_trans
> >> > @@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ int btrfs_record_root_in_trans(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >> >                              struct btrfs_root *root)
> >> >  {
> >> >       struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = root->fs_info;
> >> > -     int ret;
> >> > +     int ret, last_trans;
> >> >
> >> >       if (!test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_SHAREABLE, &root->state))
> >> >               return 0;
> >> > @@ -498,8 +498,9 @@ int btrfs_record_root_in_trans(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >> >        * see record_root_in_trans for comments about IN_TRANS_SETUP usage
> >> >        * and barriers
> >> >        */
> >> > +     last_trans = READ_ONCE(root->last_trans);
> >> >       smp_rmb();
> >> > -     if (root->last_trans == trans->transid &&
> >> > +     if (last_trans == trans->transid &&
> >> >           !test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_IN_TRANS_SETUP, &root->state))
> >>
> >> Aren't the smp_rmb barriers supposed to be used before the condition?
> >
> >
> > No, they need to be between the reads to have an effect. See  https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt §SMP BARRIER PAIRING ("When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions..."). You will see that the barriers are always between the ordered reads and not before.
> >
> > I think that Paul, the barrier guru, can confirm that the barrier was misplaced in the original code? :)