[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220207103804.695325273@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 12:05:49 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5.16 018/126] btrfs: dont start transaction for scrub if the fs is mounted read-only
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
commit 2d192fc4c1abeb0d04d1c8cd54405ff4a0b0255b upstream.
[BUG]
The following super simple script would crash btrfs at unmount time, if
CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT() is set.
mkfs.btrfs -f $dev
mount $dev $mnt
xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 4k" $mnt/file
umount $mnt
mount -r ro $dev $mnt
btrfs scrub start -Br $mnt
umount $mnt
This will trigger the following ASSERT() introduced by commit
0a31daa4b602 ("btrfs: add assertion for empty list of transactions at
late stage of umount").
That patch is definitely not the cause, it just makes enough noise for
developers.
[CAUSE]
We will start transaction for the following call chain during scrub:
scrub_enumerate_chunks()
|- btrfs_inc_block_group_ro()
|- btrfs_join_transaction()
However for RO mount, there is no running transaction at all, thus
btrfs_join_transaction() will start a new transaction.
Furthermore, since it's read-only mount, btrfs_sync_fs() will not call
btrfs_commit_super() to commit the new but empty transaction.
And leads to the ASSERT().
The bug has been there for a long time. Only the new ASSERT() makes it
noisy enough to be noticed.
[FIX]
For read-only scrub on read-only mount, there is no need to start a
transaction nor to allocate new chunks in btrfs_inc_block_group_ro().
Just do extra read-only mount check in btrfs_inc_block_group_ro(), and
if it's read-only, skip all chunk allocation and go inc_block_group_ro()
directly.
CC: stable@...r.kernel.org # 5.4+
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
--- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
@@ -2547,6 +2547,19 @@ int btrfs_inc_block_group_ro(struct btrf
int ret;
bool dirty_bg_running;
+ /*
+ * This can only happen when we are doing read-only scrub on read-only
+ * mount.
+ * In that case we should not start a new transaction on read-only fs.
+ * Thus here we skip all chunk allocations.
+ */
+ if (sb_rdonly(fs_info->sb)) {
+ mutex_lock(&fs_info->ro_block_group_mutex);
+ ret = inc_block_group_ro(cache, 0);
+ mutex_unlock(&fs_info->ro_block_group_mutex);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
do {
trans = btrfs_join_transaction(fs_info->extent_root);
if (IS_ERR(trans))
Powered by blists - more mailing lists