Message-ID: <20241018123733.vvdh4mefn4la3zec@quack3>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:37:33 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: liubaolin <liubaolin12138@....com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
	zhangshida@...inos.cn, longzhi@...gfor.com.cn,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Baolin Liu <liubaolin@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] ext4: fix a assertion failure due to ungranted bh
 dirting

On Fri 18-10-24 19:34:31, liubaolin wrote:
> > Sorry, I saw the patch you submitted.
> > I would like to request a modification to the commit message.
> > I use the email 'Baolin Liu liubaolin12138@....com' for community communication.
> > However, my work email is 'Baolin Liu liubaolin@...inos.cn'.
> > 
> > So I would like to ask you to modify the commit message as follows:
> > From:
> > Reported-by: Baolin Liu liubaolin12138@....com
> > Reported-by: Zhi Long longzhi@...gfor.com.cn
> > To:
> > Reported-and-tested-by: Baolin Liu liubaolin@...inos.cn
> > Reported-and-tested-by: Zhi Long longzhi@...gfor.com.cn
> > 
> > Could you please make the modification? Thank you.

OK, I've sent v2 with updated tags.

								Honza

> 在 2024/10/18 17:14, Jan Kara 写道:
> > On Fri 18-10-24 09:48:17, liubaolin wrote:
> > > > Hello, I am very sorry.
> > > > I did not previously understand the approach of your patch to solve the issue.
> > > > Yesterday, I intentionally injected faults during the quick reproduction
> > > > test, and indeed, after applying your patch, the crash issue was
> > > > resolved and did not occur again.
> > > > I finally understood your approach to solving the problem. Please disregard my previous email.
> > > > Thank you for helping me solve this crash issue in a better way.
> > > > I still need to improve my skills in file systems, and I truly appreciate your guidance.
> > 
> > Great! Thanks for testing. I'll send the patch for inclusion then.
> > 
> > 								Honza
> > 
> > > 在 2024/10/16 21:38, liubaolin 写道:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > I reviewed the patch attached in your email. The issue you mentioned
> > > > > about clearing buffer_new(bh) in write_end_fn() is indeed a bug.
> > > > > However, this patch does not resolve the crash issue we encountered.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let me explain my analysis in detail below.
> > > > > The crash occurs in the function jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata().
> > > > > 
> > > > > ext4_block_write_begin() -> ext4_journalled_zero_new_buffers() ->
> > > > > write_end_fn()
> > > > >   -> ext4_dirty_journalled_data() -> ext4_handle_dirty_metadata() ->
> > > > > __ext4_handle_dirty_metadata()
> > > > >   -> jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata()
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the function jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata(), there is the
> > > > > following condition:
> > > > > —---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >          if (data_race(jh->b_transaction != transaction &&
> > > > >              jh->b_next_transaction != transaction)) {
> > > > >                  spin_lock(&jh->b_state_lock);
> > > > >                  J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction == transaction ||
> > > > >                                  jh->b_next_transaction == transaction);
> > > > >                  spin_unlock(&jh->b_state_lock);
> > > > >          }
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > By analyzing the vmcore, I found that both jh->b_transaction and jh-
> > > > > > b_next_transaction are NULL.
> > > > > Through code analysis, I discovered that the
> > > > > __jbd2_journal_file_buffer() function adds the corresponding
> > > > > transaction of bh to jh->b_transaction.
> > > > > Normally, this is accessed through do_journal_get_write_access(),
> > > > > which can call __jbd2_journal_file_buffer().
> > > > > The detailed function call process is as follows:
> > > > > do_journal_get_write_access() -> ext4_journal_get_write_access() ->
> > > > > __ext4_journal_get_write_access()
> > > > >   -> jbd2_journal_get_write_access() -> do_get_write_access() ->
> > > > > __jbd2_journal_file_buffer()
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Therefore, resolving the crash issue requires obtaining write access
> > > > > before calling the jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata() function.
> > > > > The comment at the definition of the jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata()
> > > > > function also states:     'The buffer must have previously had
> > > > > jbd2_journal_get_write_access().'
> > > > > 
> > > > > In the ext4_block_write_begin() function, if get_block() encounters
> > > > > an error, then neither bh->b_this_page nor the subsequent bh calls
> > > > > do_journal_get_write_access().
> > > > > If bh->b_this_page and the subsequent bh are in the new state, it
> > > > > will lead to a crash when reaching the jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata()
> > > > > function.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, there are two ways to resolve this crash issue:
> > > > > 1、Call do_journal_get_write_access() on bh that is not handled due
> > > > > to get_block() error.
> > > > >      The patch modification is in the attachment 0001-ext4-fix-a-
> > > > > assertion-failure-due-to-ungranted-bh-dir.patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2、Call clear_buffer_new() on bh that is not handled due to
> > > > > get_block() error.
> > > > >      The patch modification is in the attachment 0001-ext4-fix-a-
> > > > > assertion-failure-due-to-bh-not-clear-new.patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Additionally, I have found a method to quickly reproduce this crash
> > > > > issue.
> > > > > For details, please refer to the email I previously sent you:
> > > > > “https://lore.kernel.org/all/bd41c24b-7325-4584-
> > > > > a965-392a32e32c74@....com/”.
> > > > > I have verified that this quick reproduction method works for both
> > > > > solutions to resolve the issue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please continue to consider which method is better to resolve this
> > > > > issue. If you think that using clear_buffer_new() is a better
> > > > > solution, I can resend the patch via git send-mail.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 在 2024/10/16 18:33, Jan Kara 写道:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri 11-10-24 12:08:58, Baolin Liu wrote:
> > > > > > Greetings，
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This problem is reproduced by our customer using their own testing tool
> > > > > > “run_bug”. When I consulted with a client, the testing tool “run_bug”
> > > > > > used a variety of background programs to benchmark (including memory
> > > > > > pressure, cpu pressure, file cycle manipulation, fsstress Stress testing
> > > > > > tool, postmark program，and so on).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The recurrence probability is relatively low.
> > > > > 
> > > > > OK, thanks for asking!
> > > > > 
> > > > > > In response to your query, in ext4_block_write_begin, the new state will
> > > > > > be clear before get block, and the bh that failed get_block will not be
> > > > > > set to new. However, when the page size is greater than the
> > > > > > block size, a
> > > > > > page will contain multiple bh.
> > > > > 
> > > > > True. I wanted to argue that the buffer_new bit should be either
> > > > > cleared in
> > > > > ext4_block_write_begin() (in case of error) or in
> > > > > ext4_journalled_write_end() (in case of success) but actually
> > > > > ext4_journalled_write_end() misses the clearing. So I think the better
> > > > > solution is like the attached patch. I'll submit it once testing finishes
> > > > > but it would be great if you could test that it fixes your problems as
> > > > > well. Thanks!
> > > > > 
> > > > >                                  Honza
> > > 
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

Powered by blists - more mailing lists