From: Josef Bacik Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 21:27:30 +0000 (-0500) Subject: btrfs: unlock to current level in btrfs_next_old_leaf X-Git-Tag: v5.15.73~12643^2~120 X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=0e46318df8a120ba5f1e15210c32cfab33b09f40;p=platform%2Fkernel%2Flinux-rpi.git btrfs: unlock to current level in btrfs_next_old_leaf Filipe reported the following lockdep splat ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.10.0-rc2-btrfs-next-71 #1 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ find/324157 is trying to acquire lock: ffff8ebc48d293a0 (btrfs-tree-01#2/3){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] but task is already holding lock: ffff8eb9932c5088 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}: lock_acquire+0xd8/0x490 down_write_nested+0x44/0x120 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x27/0x120 [btrfs] btrfs_search_slot+0x2a3/0xc50 [btrfs] btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x58/0xa0 [btrfs] insert_with_overflow+0x44/0x110 [btrfs] btrfs_insert_xattr_item+0xb8/0x1d0 [btrfs] btrfs_setxattr+0xd6/0x4c0 [btrfs] btrfs_setxattr_trans+0x68/0x100 [btrfs] __vfs_setxattr+0x66/0x80 __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x70/0x200 vfs_setxattr+0x6b/0x120 setxattr+0x125/0x240 path_setxattr+0xba/0xd0 __x64_sys_setxattr+0x27/0x30 do_syscall_64+0x33/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #0 (btrfs-tree-01#2/3){++++}-{3:3}: check_prev_add+0x91/0xc60 __lock_acquire+0x1689/0x3130 lock_acquire+0xd8/0x490 down_read_nested+0x45/0x220 __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] btrfs_next_old_leaf+0x27d/0x580 [btrfs] btrfs_real_readdir+0x1e3/0x4b0 [btrfs] iterate_dir+0x170/0x1c0 __x64_sys_getdents64+0x83/0x140 do_syscall_64+0x33/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(btrfs-tree-00); lock(btrfs-tree-01#2/3); lock(btrfs-tree-00); lock(btrfs-tree-01#2/3); *** DEADLOCK *** 5 locks held by find/324157: #0: ffff8ebc502c6e00 (&f->f_pos_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __fdget_pos+0x4d/0x60 #1: ffff8eb97f689980 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#10){++++}-{3:3}, at: iterate_dir+0x52/0x1c0 #2: ffff8ebaec00ca58 (btrfs-tree-02#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] #3: ffff8eb98f986f78 (btrfs-tree-01#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] #4: ffff8eb9932c5088 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] stack backtrace: CPU: 2 PID: 324157 Comm: find Not tainted 5.10.0-rc2-btrfs-next-71 #1 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.13.0-0-gf21b5a4aeb02-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x8d/0xb5 check_noncircular+0xff/0x110 ? mark_lock.part.0+0x468/0xe90 check_prev_add+0x91/0xc60 __lock_acquire+0x1689/0x3130 ? kvm_clock_read+0x14/0x30 ? kvm_sched_clock_read+0x5/0x10 lock_acquire+0xd8/0x490 ? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] down_read_nested+0x45/0x220 ? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x1a0 [btrfs] btrfs_next_old_leaf+0x27d/0x580 [btrfs] btrfs_real_readdir+0x1e3/0x4b0 [btrfs] iterate_dir+0x170/0x1c0 __x64_sys_getdents64+0x83/0x140 ? filldir+0x1d0/0x1d0 do_syscall_64+0x33/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 This happens because btrfs_next_old_leaf searches down to our current key, and then walks up the path until we can move to the next slot, and then reads back down the path so we get the next leaf. However it doesn't unlock any lower levels until it replaces them with the new extent buffer. This is technically fine, but of course causes lockdep to complain, because we could be holding locks on lower levels while locking upper levels. Fix this by dropping all nodes below the level that we use as our new starting point before we start reading back down the path. This also allows us to drop the nested/recursive locking magic, because we're no longer locking two nodes at the same level anymore. Reported-by: Filipe Manana Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c index ec904db041e6..7dc3e87828bd 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c @@ -5272,6 +5272,7 @@ int btrfs_next_old_leaf(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_path *path, struct btrfs_key key; u32 nritems; int ret; + int i; nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]); if (nritems == 0) @@ -5343,9 +5344,19 @@ again: continue; } - if (next) { - btrfs_tree_read_unlock(next); - free_extent_buffer(next); + + /* + * Our current level is where we're going to start from, and to + * make sure lockdep doesn't complain we need to drop our locks + * and nodes from 0 to our current level. + */ + for (i = 0; i < level; i++) { + if (path->locks[level]) { + btrfs_tree_read_unlock(path->nodes[i]); + path->locks[i] = 0; + } + free_extent_buffer(path->nodes[i]); + path->nodes[i] = NULL; } next = c; @@ -5374,22 +5385,14 @@ again: cond_resched(); goto again; } - if (!ret) { - __btrfs_tree_read_lock(next, - BTRFS_NESTING_RIGHT, - path->recurse); - } + if (!ret) + btrfs_tree_read_lock(next); } break; } path->slots[level] = slot; while (1) { level--; - c = path->nodes[level]; - if (path->locks[level]) - btrfs_tree_read_unlock(c); - - free_extent_buffer(c); path->nodes[level] = next; path->slots[level] = 0; if (!path->skip_locking) @@ -5408,8 +5411,7 @@ again: } if (!path->skip_locking) - __btrfs_tree_read_lock(next, BTRFS_NESTING_RIGHT, - path->recurse); + btrfs_tree_read_lock(next); } ret = 0; done: