From patchwork Thu Aug 20 09:19:44 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Greg Kroah-Hartman X-Patchwork-Id: 265411 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E37FC433E1 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 12:41:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62EAA207DE for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 12:41:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1597927277; bh=1cHTx30rbzMwVWXjTLu473SVH9WLuKIxD9AOHOapkAM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=WBoN5vo/yNPIp5EUVEC9VoWTwQA47CweY/HgB863Kz5pdx84atJz5FrquQwIUy4Jf dFnDaJthy2qBaFLqHUUqk0XLvQm+R2F/j6pP4F/O0IqXAf47cDHZ+VDsZmufKouoH9 0jbRMad/nQ0dJ4ZhmKTv5lmazCg0UWLwh+zqDBYc= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729206AbgHTMlN (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:41:13 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:49002 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728890AbgHTJqc (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2020 05:46:32 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70CAD2078D; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:46:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1597916792; bh=1cHTx30rbzMwVWXjTLu473SVH9WLuKIxD9AOHOapkAM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lpsnLh75JVLi1xtqJ7qQpzAAxJ9r5pil06yLdoIlkSPwoFETmbOKl28ba1N3F95Oz tVOCAUcLpKHV+kpHts3V1BoQpwT4tfLMSZ+jOQAU/ZzZ2iMvLSwhYFhmNCALgY0vlD JcM88UIhaN3ULzcaX+NIphOVu+3cdHpKR/9URgMA= From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Anand Jain , Josef Bacik , David Sterba Subject: [PATCH 5.4 017/152] btrfs: move the chunk_mutex in btrfs_read_chunk_tree Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:19:44 +0200 Message-Id: <20200820091554.527061070@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.28.0 In-Reply-To: <20200820091553.615456912@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20200820091553.615456912@linuxfoundation.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.66 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org From: Josef Bacik commit 01d01caf19ff7c537527d352d169c4368375c0a1 upstream. We are currently getting this lockdep splat in btrfs/161: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.8.0-rc5+ #20 Tainted: G E ------------------------------------------------------ mount/678048 is trying to acquire lock: ffff9b769f15b6e0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] but task is already holding lock: ffff9b76abdb08d0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x6a/0x800 [btrfs] which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0 btrfs_init_new_device+0x2d2/0x1240 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0x1de/0x2d20 [btrfs] ksys_ioctl+0x87/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1240/0x2460 lock_acquire+0xab/0x360 __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0 clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x330/0x800 [btrfs] open_ctree+0xb7c/0x18ce [btrfs] btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x13/0xfa [btrfs] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 fc_mount+0xe/0x40 vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0x90 btrfs_mount+0x13b/0x3e0 [btrfs] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 do_mount+0x7de/0xb30 __x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex); lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by mount/678048: #0: ffff9b75ff5fb0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#63/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: alloc_super+0xb5/0x380 #1: ffffffffc0c2fbc8 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x54/0x800 [btrfs] #2: ffff9b76abdb08d0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x6a/0x800 [btrfs] stack backtrace: CPU: 2 PID: 678048 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 5.8.0-rc5+ #20 Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M./890FX Deluxe5, BIOS P1.40 05/03/2011 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x96/0xd0 check_noncircular+0x162/0x180 __lock_acquire+0x1240/0x2460 ? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20 lock_acquire+0xab/0x360 ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0 ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60 ? cpumask_next+0x16/0x20 ? module_assert_mutex_or_preempt+0x14/0x40 ? __module_address+0x28/0xf0 ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] ? static_obj+0x4f/0x60 ? lockdep_init_map_waits+0x43/0x200 ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x330/0x800 [btrfs] open_ctree+0xb7c/0x18ce [btrfs] ? super_setup_bdi_name+0x79/0xd0 btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x13/0xfa [btrfs] ? vfs_parse_fs_string+0x84/0xb0 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60 ? kfree+0x2b5/0x310 legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 fc_mount+0xe/0x40 vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0x90 btrfs_mount+0x13b/0x3e0 [btrfs] ? cred_has_capability+0x7c/0x120 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60 ? legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 do_mount+0x7de/0xb30 ? memdup_user+0x4e/0x90 __x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 This is because btrfs_read_chunk_tree() can come upon DEV_EXTENT's and then read the device, which takes the device_list_mutex. The device_list_mutex needs to be taken before the chunk_mutex, so this is a problem. We only really need the chunk mutex around adding the chunk, so move the mutex around read_one_chunk. An argument could be made that we don't even need the chunk_mutex here as it's during mount, and we are protected by various other locks. However we already have special rules for ->device_list_mutex, and I'd rather not have another special case for ->chunk_mutex. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19+ Reviewed-by: Anand Jain Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -7282,7 +7282,6 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_f * otherwise we don't need it. */ mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex); - mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); /* * It is possible for mount and umount to race in such a way that @@ -7327,7 +7326,9 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_f } else if (found_key.type == BTRFS_CHUNK_ITEM_KEY) { struct btrfs_chunk *chunk; chunk = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_chunk); + mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); ret = read_one_chunk(&found_key, leaf, chunk); + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); if (ret) goto error; } @@ -7357,7 +7358,6 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_f } ret = 0; error: - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); mutex_unlock(&uuid_mutex); btrfs_free_path(path);