linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix possible assert failed in xfs_fs_put

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

Message-ID: <20230314163100.GC11376@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:31:00 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Ye Bin <yebin@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix possible assert failed in xfs_fs_put_super()
 when do cpu offline

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 05:06:49PM +0800, Ye Bin wrote:
> From: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> 
> There's a issue when do cpu offline test:
> CPU: 48 PID: 1168152 Comm: umount Kdump: loaded Tainted: G L
> pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--)
> pc : assfail+0x8c/0xb4
> lr : assfail+0x38/0xb4
> sp : ffffa00033ce7c40
> x29: ffffa00033ce7c40 x28: ffffa00014794f30
> x27: ffffa00014f6ca20 x26: 1fffe0120b2e2030
> x25: ffff009059710188 x24: ffff00886c0a4650
> x23: 1fffe0110d8148ca x22: ffff009059710180
> x21: ffffa00015155680 x20: ffff00886c0a4000
> x19: 0000000000000001 x18: 0000000000000000
> x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
> x15: 0000000000000007 x14: 1fffe00304cef265
> x13: ffff00182642b200 x12: ffff8012d37757bf
> x11: 1fffe012d37757be x10: ffff8012d37757be
> x9 : ffffa00010603a0c x8 : 0000000041b58ab3
> x7 : ffff94000679cf44 x6 : 00000000ffffffc0
> x5 : 0000000000000021 x4 : 00000000ffffffca
> x3 : 1ffff40002a27ee1 x2 : 0000000000000004
> x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : ffffa0001513f000
> Call trace:
>  assfail+0x8c/0xb4
>  xfs_destroy_percpu_counters+0x98/0xa4
>  xfs_fs_put_super+0x1a0/0x2a4
>  generic_shutdown_super+0x104/0x2c0
>  kill_block_super+0x8c/0xf4
>  deactivate_locked_super+0xa4/0x164
>  deactivate_super+0xb0/0xdc
>  cleanup_mnt+0x29c/0x3ec
>  __cleanup_mnt+0x1c/0x30
>  task_work_run+0xe0/0x200
>  do_notify_resume+0x244/0x320
>  work_pending+0xc/0xa0
> 
> We analyzed the data in vmcore is correct. But triggered above issue.
> As f689054aace2 ("percpu_counter: add percpu_counter_sum_all interface")
> commit describes there is a small race window between the online CPUs traversal
> of percpu_counter_sum and the CPU offline callback. This means percpu_counter_sum()
> may return incorrect result during cpu offline.
> To solve above issue use percpu_counter_sum_all() interface to make sure
> result is correct to prevent false triggering of assertions.

How about the other percpu_counter_sum callsites inside XFS?  Some of
them are involved in writing ondisk metadata (xfs_log_sb) or doing
correctness checks (fs/xfs/scrub/*); shouldn't those also be using the
_all variant?

--D

> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> index 2479b5cbd75e..c0ce66f966ee 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> @@ -1076,7 +1076,7 @@ xfs_destroy_percpu_counters(
>  	percpu_counter_destroy(&mp->m_ifree);
>  	percpu_counter_destroy(&mp->m_fdblocks);
>  	ASSERT(xfs_is_shutdown(mp) ||
> -	       percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_delalloc_blks) == 0);
> +	       percpu_counter_sum_all(&mp->m_delalloc_blks) == 0);
>  	percpu_counter_destroy(&mp->m_delalloc_blks);
>  	percpu_counter_destroy(&mp->m_frextents);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.31.1
>