Btrfs: fix race leading to incorrect item deletion when dropping extents
While running a stress test I got the following warning triggered: [191627.672810] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [191627.673949] WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 8447 at fs/btrfs/file.c:779 __btrfs_drop_extents+0x391/0xa50 [btrfs]() (...) [191627.701485] Call Trace: [191627.702037] [<ffffffff8145f077>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b [191627.702992] [<ffffffff81095de5>] ? console_unlock+0x356/0x3a2 [191627.704091] [<ffffffff8104b3b0>] warn_slowpath_common+0xa1/0xbb [191627.705380] [<ffffffffa0664499>] ? __btrfs_drop_extents+0x391/0xa50 [btrfs] [191627.706637] [<ffffffff8104b46d>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x1c [191627.707789] [<ffffffffa0664499>] __btrfs_drop_extents+0x391/0xa50 [btrfs] [191627.709155] [<ffffffff8115663c>] ? cache_alloc_debugcheck_after.isra.32+0x171/0x1d0 [191627.712444] [<ffffffff81155007>] ? kmemleak_alloc_recursive.constprop.40+0x16/0x18 [191627.714162] [<ffffffffa06570c9>] insert_reserved_file_extent.constprop.40+0x83/0x24e [btrfs] [191627.715887] [<ffffffffa065422b>] ? start_transaction+0x3bb/0x610 [btrfs] [191627.717287] [<ffffffffa065b604>] btrfs_finish_ordered_io+0x273/0x4e2 [btrfs] [191627.728865] [<ffffffffa065b888>] finish_ordered_fn+0x15/0x17 [btrfs] [191627.730045] [<ffffffffa067d688>] normal_work_helper+0x14c/0x32c [btrfs] [191627.731256] [<ffffffffa067d96a>] btrfs_endio_write_helper+0x12/0x14 [btrfs] [191627.732661] [<ffffffff81061119>] process_one_work+0x24c/0x4ae [191627.733822] [<ffffffff810615b0>] worker_thread+0x206/0x2c2 [191627.734857] [<ffffffff810613aa>] ? process_scheduled_works+0x2f/0x2f [191627.736052] [<ffffffff810613aa>] ? process_scheduled_works+0x2f/0x2f [191627.737349] [<ffffffff810669a6>] kthread+0xef/0xf7 [191627.738267] [<ffffffff810f3b3a>] ? time_hardirqs_on+0x15/0x28 [191627.739330] [<ffffffff810668b7>] ? __kthread_parkme+0xad/0xad [191627.741976] [<ffffffff81465592>] ret_from_fork+0x42/0x70 [191627.743080] [<ffffffff810668b7>] ? __kthread_parkme+0xad/0xad [191627.744206] ---[ end trace bbfddacb7aaada8d ]--- $ cat -n fs/btrfs/file.c 691 int __btrfs_drop_extents(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, (...) 758 btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &key, path->slots[0]); 759 if (key.objectid > ino || 760 key.type > BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY || key.offset >= end) 761 break; 762 763 fi = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, path->slots[0], 764 struct btrfs_file_extent_item); 765 extent_type = btrfs_file_extent_type(leaf, fi); 766 767 if (extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_REG || 768 extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_PREALLOC) { (...) 774 } else if (extent_type == BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_INLINE) { (...) 778 } else { 779 WARN_ON(1); 780 extent_end = search_start; 781 } (...) This happened because the item we were processing did not match a file extent item (its key type != BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY), and even on this case we cast the item to a struct btrfs_file_extent_item pointer and then find a type field value that does not match any of the expected values (BTRFS_FILE_EXTENT_[REG|PREALLOC|INLINE]). This scenario happens due to a tiny time window where a race can happen as exemplified below. For example, consider the following scenario where we're using the NO_HOLES feature and we have the following two neighbour leafs: Leaf X (has N items) Leaf Y [ ... (257 INODE_ITEM 0) (257 INODE_REF 256) ] [ (257 EXTENT_DATA 8192), ... ] slot N - 2 slot N - 1 slot 0 Our inode 257 has an implicit hole in the range [0, 8K[ (implicit rather than explicit because NO_HOLES is enabled). Now if our inode has an ordered extent for the range [4K, 8K[ that is finishing, the following can happen: CPU 1 CPU 2 btrfs_finish_ordered_io() insert_reserved_file_extent() __btrfs_drop_extents() Searches for the key (257 EXTENT_DATA 4096) through btrfs_lookup_file_extent() Key not found and we get a path where path->nodes[0] == leaf X and path->slots[0] == N Because path->slots[0] is >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf X), we call btrfs_next_leaf() btrfs_next_leaf() releases the path inserts key (257 INODE_REF 4096) at the end of leaf X, leaf X now has N + 1 keys, and the new key is at slot N btrfs_next_leaf() searches for key (257 INODE_REF 256), with path->keep_locks set to 1, because it was the last key it saw in leaf X finds it in leaf X again and notices it's no longer the last key of the leaf, so it returns 0 with path->nodes[0] == leaf X and path->slots[0] == N (which is now < btrfs_header_nritems(leaf X)), pointing to the new key (257 INODE_REF 4096) __btrfs_drop_extents() casts the item at path->nodes[0], slot path->slots[0], to a struct btrfs_file_extent_item - it does not skip keys for the target inode with a type less than BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY (BTRFS_INODE_REF_KEY < BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY) sees a bogus value for the type field triggering the WARN_ON in the trace shown above, and sets extent_end = search_start (4096) does the if-then-else logic to fixup 0 length extent items created by a past bug from hole punching: if (extent_end == key.offset && extent_end >= search_start) goto delete_extent_item; that evaluates to true and it ends up deleting the key pointed to by path->slots[0], (257 INODE_REF 4096), from leaf X The same could happen for example for a xattr that ends up having a key with an offset value that matches search_start (very unlikely but not impossible). So fix this by ensuring that keys smaller than BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY are skipped, never casted to struct btrfs_file_extent_item and never deleted by accident. Also protect against the unexpected case of getting a key for a lower inode number by skipping that key and issuing a warning. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
3b2ba7b31d
commit
aeafbf8486
|
@ -756,8 +756,16 @@ next_slot:
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &key, path->slots[0]);
|
||||
if (key.objectid > ino ||
|
||||
key.type > BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY || key.offset >= end)
|
||||
|
||||
if (key.objectid > ino)
|
||||
break;
|
||||
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(key.objectid < ino) ||
|
||||
key.type < BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY) {
|
||||
ASSERT(del_nr == 0);
|
||||
path->slots[0]++;
|
||||
goto next_slot;
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (key.type > BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY || key.offset >= end)
|
||||
break;
|
||||
|
||||
fi = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, path->slots[0],
|
||||
|
@ -776,8 +784,8 @@ next_slot:
|
|||
btrfs_file_extent_inline_len(leaf,
|
||||
path->slots[0], fi);
|
||||
} else {
|
||||
WARN_ON(1);
|
||||
extent_end = search_start;
|
||||
/* can't happen */
|
||||
BUG();
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue