Message-ID: <bf4479d1-78d4-2bc0-9f8f-6434df8e6368@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 17:19:31 +0800
From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, djwong@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org,
 brauner@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, jack@...e.cz, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
 chengzhihao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] iomap: drop unnecessary state_lock when setting ifs
 uptodate bits

On 2024/8/1 12:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 09:52:49AM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> On 2024/8/1 0:52, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 05:13:04PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>>> Commit '1cea335d1db1 ("iomap: fix sub-page uptodate handling")' fix a
>>>> race issue when submitting multiple read bios for a page spans more than
>>>> one file system block by adding a spinlock(which names state_lock now)
>>>> to make the page uptodate synchronous. However, the race condition only
>>>> happened between the read I/O submitting and completeing threads, it's
>>>> sufficient to use page lock to protect other paths, e.g. buffered write
>>>> path. After large folio is supported, the spinlock could affect more
>>>> about the buffered write performance, so drop it could reduce some
>>>> unnecessary locking overhead.
>>>
>>> This patch doesn't work.  If we get two read completions at the same
>>> time for blocks belonging to the same folio, they will both write to
>>> the uptodate array at the same time.
>>>
>> This patch just drop the state_lock in the buffered write path, doesn't
>> affect the read path, the uptodate setting in the read completion path
>> is still protected the state_lock, please see iomap_finish_folio_read().
>> So I think this patch doesn't affect the case you mentioned, or am I
>> missing something?
> 
> Oh, I see.  So the argument for locking correctness is that:
> 
> A. If ifs_set_range_uptodate() is called from iomap_finish_folio_read(),
>    the state_lock is held.
> B. If ifs_set_range_uptodate() is called from iomap_set_range_uptodate(),
>    either we know:
> B1. The caller of iomap_set_range_uptodate() holds the folio lock, and this
>     is the only place that can call ifs_set_range_uptodate() for this folio
> B2. The caller of iomap_set_range_uptodate() holds the state lock
> 
> But I think you've assigned iomap_read_inline_data() to case B1 when I
> think it's B2.  erofs can certainly have a file which consists of various
> blocks elsewhere in the file and then a tail that is stored inline.

Oh, you are right, thanks for pointing this out. I missed the case of
having both file blocks and inline data in one folio on erofs. So we
also need to hold state_lock in iomap_read_inline_data(), it looks like
we'd better to introduce a new common helper to do this job for B2.

> 
> __iomap_write_begin() is case B1 because it holds the folio lock, and
> submits its read(s) sychronously.  Likewise __iomap_write_end() is
> case B1.
> 
> But, um.  Why do we need to call iomap_set_range_uptodate() in both
> write_begin() and write_end()?
> 
> And I think this is actively buggy:
> 
>                if (iomap_block_needs_zeroing(iter, block_start)) {
>                         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(iter->flags & IOMAP_UNSHARE))
>                                 return -EIO;
>                         folio_zero_segments(folio, poff, from, to, poff + plen);
> ...
>                 iomap_set_range_uptodate(folio, poff, plen);
> 
> because we zero from 'poff' to 'from', then from 'to' to 'poff+plen',
> but mark the entire range as uptodate.  And once a range is marked
> as uptodate, it can be read from.
> 
> So we can do this:
> 
>  - Get a write request for bytes 1-4094 over a hole
>  - allocate single page folio
>  - zero bytes 0 and 4095
>  - mark 0-4095 as uptodate
>  - take page fault while trying to access the user address
>  - read() to bytes 0-4095 now succeeds even though we haven't written
>    1-4094 yet
> 
> And that page fault can be uffd or a buffer that's in an mmap that's
> out on disc.  Plenty of time to make this race happen, and we leak
> 4094/4096 bytes of the previous contents of that folio to userspace.
> 
> Or did I miss something?
> 

Indeed, this could happen on the filesystem without inode lock in the
buffered read path(I've checked it out on my ext4 buffered iomap
branch), and I guess it could also happen after a short copy happened
in the write path. We don't need iomap_set_range_uptodate() for the
zeroing case in __iomap_write_begin().

Thanks,
Yi.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists