[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <284ccc08-8de7-9188-19d8-20f4eda56cb4@dorminy.me>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:10:59 -0500
From: Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@...miny.me>
To: dsterba@...e.cz, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] btrfs: add fs state details to error messages.
> Added to misc-next with some minor updates, thanks.
>
Awesome, thank you. I realized this morning that it might be technically
slightly racy actually and would propose something like the following
static void btrfs_state_to_string(const struct btrfs_fs_info *info, char *buf)
{
unsigned int bit;
+ unsigned long fs_state = READ_ONCE(info->fs_state);
unsigned int states_printed = 0;
char *curr = buf;
memcpy(curr, STATE_STRING_PREFACE, sizeof(STATE_STRING_PREFACE));
curr += sizeof(STATE_STRING_PREFACE) - 1;
- for_each_set_bit(bit, &info->fs_state, sizeof(info->fs_state)) {
+ for_each_set_bit(bit, fs_state, sizeof(fs_state)) {
All the other interactions with info->fs_state are test/set/clear_bit, which treat the argument as volatile and are therefore safe to do from multiple threads. Without the READ_ONCE (reading it as a volatile), the compiler or cpu could turn the reads of info->fs_state in for_each_set_bit() into writes of random stuff into info->fs_state, potentially clearing the state bits or filling them with garbage.
Even if this is right, it'd be rare, but it would be exceeding weird for a message to be logged listing an error and then future messages be logged without any such state, or with a random collection of garbage states.
I can send another patch if this explanation seems reasonable and you'd like it separate; or maybe this is too unlikely to worry about. Thanks again for the review!
Sweet Tea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists