discard options #2
Comments
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 14, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 11, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 12, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 12, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 12, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 12, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 12, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 13, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 13, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 13, 2019
Two paths to update quota and f2fs_lock_op: 1. - lock_op | - quota_update `- unlock_op 2. - quota_update - lock_op `- unlock_op But, we need to make a transaction on quota_update + lock_op in #2 case. So, this patch introduces: 1. lock_op 2. down_write 3. check __need_flush 4. up_write 5. if there is dirty quota entries, flush them 6. otherwise, good to go Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 16, 2020
PID: 257 TASK: ecdd0000 CPU: 0 COMMAND: "init" #0 [<c0b420ec>] (__schedule) from [<c0b423c8>] #1 [<c0b423c8>] (schedule) from [<c0b459d4>] #2 [<c0b459d4>] (rwsem_down_read_failed) from [<c0b44fa0>] #3 [<c0b44fa0>] (down_read) from [<c044233c>] #4 [<c044233c>] (f2fs_truncate_blocks) from [<c0442890>] #5 [<c0442890>] (f2fs_truncate) from [<c044d408>] #6 [<c044d408>] (f2fs_evict_inode) from [<c030be18>] #7 [<c030be18>] (evict) from [<c030a558>] #8 [<c030a558>] (iput) from [<c047c600>] #9 [<c047c600>] (f2fs_sync_node_pages) from [<c0465414>] #10 [<c0465414>] (f2fs_write_checkpoint) from [<c04575f4>] #11 [<c04575f4>] (f2fs_sync_fs) from [<c0441918>] #12 [<c0441918>] (f2fs_do_sync_file) from [<c0441098>] #13 [<c0441098>] (f2fs_sync_file) from [<c0323fa0>] #14 [<c0323fa0>] (vfs_fsync_range) from [<c0324294>] #15 [<c0324294>] (do_fsync) from [<c0324014>] #16 [<c0324014>] (sys_fsync) from [<c0108bc0>] This can be caused by flush_dirty_inode() in f2fs_sync_node_pages() where iput() requires f2fs_lock_op() again resulting in livelock. Reported-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 16, 2020
PID: 257 TASK: ecdd0000 CPU: 0 COMMAND: "init" #0 [<c0b420ec>] (__schedule) from [<c0b423c8>] #1 [<c0b423c8>] (schedule) from [<c0b459d4>] #2 [<c0b459d4>] (rwsem_down_read_failed) from [<c0b44fa0>] #3 [<c0b44fa0>] (down_read) from [<c044233c>] #4 [<c044233c>] (f2fs_truncate_blocks) from [<c0442890>] #5 [<c0442890>] (f2fs_truncate) from [<c044d408>] #6 [<c044d408>] (f2fs_evict_inode) from [<c030be18>] #7 [<c030be18>] (evict) from [<c030a558>] #8 [<c030a558>] (iput) from [<c047c600>] #9 [<c047c600>] (f2fs_sync_node_pages) from [<c0465414>] #10 [<c0465414>] (f2fs_write_checkpoint) from [<c04575f4>] #11 [<c04575f4>] (f2fs_sync_fs) from [<c0441918>] #12 [<c0441918>] (f2fs_do_sync_file) from [<c0441098>] #13 [<c0441098>] (f2fs_sync_file) from [<c0323fa0>] #14 [<c0323fa0>] (vfs_fsync_range) from [<c0324294>] #15 [<c0324294>] (do_fsync) from [<c0324014>] #16 [<c0324014>] (sys_fsync) from [<c0108bc0>] This can be caused by flush_dirty_inode() in f2fs_sync_node_pages() where iput() requires f2fs_lock_op() again resulting in livelock. Reported-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 16, 2020
PID: 257 TASK: ecdd0000 CPU: 0 COMMAND: "init" #0 [<c0b420ec>] (__schedule) from [<c0b423c8>] #1 [<c0b423c8>] (schedule) from [<c0b459d4>] #2 [<c0b459d4>] (rwsem_down_read_failed) from [<c0b44fa0>] #3 [<c0b44fa0>] (down_read) from [<c044233c>] #4 [<c044233c>] (f2fs_truncate_blocks) from [<c0442890>] #5 [<c0442890>] (f2fs_truncate) from [<c044d408>] #6 [<c044d408>] (f2fs_evict_inode) from [<c030be18>] #7 [<c030be18>] (evict) from [<c030a558>] #8 [<c030a558>] (iput) from [<c047c600>] #9 [<c047c600>] (f2fs_sync_node_pages) from [<c0465414>] #10 [<c0465414>] (f2fs_write_checkpoint) from [<c04575f4>] #11 [<c04575f4>] (f2fs_sync_fs) from [<c0441918>] #12 [<c0441918>] (f2fs_do_sync_file) from [<c0441098>] #13 [<c0441098>] (f2fs_sync_file) from [<c0323fa0>] #14 [<c0323fa0>] (vfs_fsync_range) from [<c0324294>] #15 [<c0324294>] (do_fsync) from [<c0324014>] #16 [<c0324014>] (sys_fsync) from [<c0108bc0>] This can be caused by flush_dirty_inode() in f2fs_sync_node_pages() where iput() requires f2fs_lock_op() again resulting in livelock. Reported-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 27, 2020
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208565 PID: 257 TASK: ecdd0000 CPU: 0 COMMAND: "init" #0 [<c0b420ec>] (__schedule) from [<c0b423c8>] #1 [<c0b423c8>] (schedule) from [<c0b459d4>] #2 [<c0b459d4>] (rwsem_down_read_failed) from [<c0b44fa0>] #3 [<c0b44fa0>] (down_read) from [<c044233c>] #4 [<c044233c>] (f2fs_truncate_blocks) from [<c0442890>] #5 [<c0442890>] (f2fs_truncate) from [<c044d408>] #6 [<c044d408>] (f2fs_evict_inode) from [<c030be18>] #7 [<c030be18>] (evict) from [<c030a558>] #8 [<c030a558>] (iput) from [<c047c600>] #9 [<c047c600>] (f2fs_sync_node_pages) from [<c0465414>] #10 [<c0465414>] (f2fs_write_checkpoint) from [<c04575f4>] #11 [<c04575f4>] (f2fs_sync_fs) from [<c0441918>] #12 [<c0441918>] (f2fs_do_sync_file) from [<c0441098>] #13 [<c0441098>] (f2fs_sync_file) from [<c0323fa0>] #14 [<c0323fa0>] (vfs_fsync_range) from [<c0324294>] #15 [<c0324294>] (do_fsync) from [<c0324014>] #16 [<c0324014>] (sys_fsync) from [<c0108bc0>] This can be caused by flush_dirty_inode() in f2fs_sync_node_pages() where iput() requires f2fs_lock_op() again resulting in livelock. Reported-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 27, 2020
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208565 PID: 257 TASK: ecdd0000 CPU: 0 COMMAND: "init" #0 [<c0b420ec>] (__schedule) from [<c0b423c8>] #1 [<c0b423c8>] (schedule) from [<c0b459d4>] #2 [<c0b459d4>] (rwsem_down_read_failed) from [<c0b44fa0>] #3 [<c0b44fa0>] (down_read) from [<c044233c>] #4 [<c044233c>] (f2fs_truncate_blocks) from [<c0442890>] #5 [<c0442890>] (f2fs_truncate) from [<c044d408>] #6 [<c044d408>] (f2fs_evict_inode) from [<c030be18>] #7 [<c030be18>] (evict) from [<c030a558>] #8 [<c030a558>] (iput) from [<c047c600>] #9 [<c047c600>] (f2fs_sync_node_pages) from [<c0465414>] #10 [<c0465414>] (f2fs_write_checkpoint) from [<c04575f4>] #11 [<c04575f4>] (f2fs_sync_fs) from [<c0441918>] #12 [<c0441918>] (f2fs_do_sync_file) from [<c0441098>] #13 [<c0441098>] (f2fs_sync_file) from [<c0323fa0>] #14 [<c0323fa0>] (vfs_fsync_range) from [<c0324294>] #15 [<c0324294>] (do_fsync) from [<c0324014>] #16 [<c0324014>] (sys_fsync) from [<c0108bc0>] This can be caused by flush_dirty_inode() in f2fs_sync_node_pages() where iput() requires f2fs_lock_op() again resulting in livelock. Reported-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 27, 2020
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208565 PID: 257 TASK: ecdd0000 CPU: 0 COMMAND: "init" #0 [<c0b420ec>] (__schedule) from [<c0b423c8>] #1 [<c0b423c8>] (schedule) from [<c0b459d4>] #2 [<c0b459d4>] (rwsem_down_read_failed) from [<c0b44fa0>] #3 [<c0b44fa0>] (down_read) from [<c044233c>] #4 [<c044233c>] (f2fs_truncate_blocks) from [<c0442890>] #5 [<c0442890>] (f2fs_truncate) from [<c044d408>] #6 [<c044d408>] (f2fs_evict_inode) from [<c030be18>] #7 [<c030be18>] (evict) from [<c030a558>] #8 [<c030a558>] (iput) from [<c047c600>] #9 [<c047c600>] (f2fs_sync_node_pages) from [<c0465414>] #10 [<c0465414>] (f2fs_write_checkpoint) from [<c04575f4>] #11 [<c04575f4>] (f2fs_sync_fs) from [<c0441918>] #12 [<c0441918>] (f2fs_do_sync_file) from [<c0441098>] #13 [<c0441098>] (f2fs_sync_file) from [<c0323fa0>] #14 [<c0323fa0>] (vfs_fsync_range) from [<c0324294>] #15 [<c0324294>] (do_fsync) from [<c0324014>] #16 [<c0324014>] (sys_fsync) from [<c0108bc0>] This can be caused by flush_dirty_inode() in f2fs_sync_node_pages() where iput() requires f2fs_lock_op() again resulting in livelock. Reported-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 28, 2020
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208565 PID: 257 TASK: ecdd0000 CPU: 0 COMMAND: "init" #0 [<c0b420ec>] (__schedule) from [<c0b423c8>] #1 [<c0b423c8>] (schedule) from [<c0b459d4>] #2 [<c0b459d4>] (rwsem_down_read_failed) from [<c0b44fa0>] #3 [<c0b44fa0>] (down_read) from [<c044233c>] #4 [<c044233c>] (f2fs_truncate_blocks) from [<c0442890>] #5 [<c0442890>] (f2fs_truncate) from [<c044d408>] #6 [<c044d408>] (f2fs_evict_inode) from [<c030be18>] #7 [<c030be18>] (evict) from [<c030a558>] #8 [<c030a558>] (iput) from [<c047c600>] #9 [<c047c600>] (f2fs_sync_node_pages) from [<c0465414>] #10 [<c0465414>] (f2fs_write_checkpoint) from [<c04575f4>] #11 [<c04575f4>] (f2fs_sync_fs) from [<c0441918>] #12 [<c0441918>] (f2fs_do_sync_file) from [<c0441098>] #13 [<c0441098>] (f2fs_sync_file) from [<c0323fa0>] #14 [<c0323fa0>] (vfs_fsync_range) from [<c0324294>] #15 [<c0324294>] (do_fsync) from [<c0324014>] #16 [<c0324014>] (sys_fsync) from [<c0108bc0>] This can be caused by flush_dirty_inode() in f2fs_sync_node_pages() where iput() requires f2fs_lock_op() again resulting in livelock. Reported-by: Zhiguo Niu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 16, 2020
Convert f2fs to use the new functions fscrypt_prepare_new_inode() and
fscrypt_set_context(). This avoids calling
fscrypt_get_encryption_info() from under f2fs_lock_op(), which can
deadlock because fscrypt_get_encryption_info() isn't GFP_NOFS-safe.
For more details about this problem, see the earlier patch
"fscrypt: add fscrypt_prepare_new_inode() and fscrypt_set_context()".
This also fixes a f2fs-specific deadlock when the filesystem is mounted
with '-o test_dummy_encryption' and a file is created in an unencrypted
directory other than the root directory:
INFO: task touch:207 blocked for more than 30 seconds.
Not tainted 5.9.0-rc4-00099-g729e3d0919844 #2
"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
task:touch state:D stack: 0 pid: 207 ppid: 167 flags:0x00000000
Call Trace:
[...]
lock_page include/linux/pagemap.h:548 [inline]
pagecache_get_page+0x25e/0x310 mm/filemap.c:1682
find_or_create_page include/linux/pagemap.h:348 [inline]
grab_cache_page include/linux/pagemap.h:424 [inline]
f2fs_grab_cache_page fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2395 [inline]
f2fs_grab_cache_page fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:2373 [inline]
__get_node_page.part.0+0x39/0x2d0 fs/f2fs/node.c:1350
__get_node_page fs/f2fs/node.c:35 [inline]
f2fs_get_node_page+0x2e/0x60 fs/f2fs/node.c:1399
read_inline_xattr+0x88/0x140 fs/f2fs/xattr.c:288
lookup_all_xattrs+0x1f9/0x2c0 fs/f2fs/xattr.c:344
f2fs_getxattr+0x9b/0x160 fs/f2fs/xattr.c:532
f2fs_get_context+0x1e/0x20 fs/f2fs/super.c:2460
fscrypt_get_encryption_info+0x9b/0x450 fs/crypto/keysetup.c:472
fscrypt_inherit_context+0x2f/0xb0 fs/crypto/policy.c:640
f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0xab/0x340 fs/f2fs/dir.c:540
f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x145/0x390 fs/f2fs/inline.c:621
f2fs_add_dentry+0x31/0x80 fs/f2fs/dir.c:757
f2fs_do_add_link+0xcd/0x130 fs/f2fs/dir.c:798
f2fs_add_link fs/f2fs/f2fs.h:3234 [inline]
f2fs_create+0x104/0x290 fs/f2fs/namei.c:344
lookup_open.isra.0+0x2de/0x500 fs/namei.c:3103
open_last_lookups+0xa9/0x340 fs/namei.c:3177
path_openat+0x8f/0x1b0 fs/namei.c:3365
do_filp_open+0x87/0x130 fs/namei.c:3395
do_sys_openat2+0x96/0x150 fs/open.c:1168
[...]
That happened because f2fs_add_inline_entry() locks the directory
inode's page in order to add the dentry, then f2fs_get_context() tries
to lock it recursively in order to read the encryption xattr. This
problem is specific to "test_dummy_encryption" because normally the
directory's fscrypt_info would be set up prior to
f2fs_add_inline_entry() in order to encrypt the new filename.
Regardless, the new design fixes this test_dummy_encryption deadlock as
well as potential deadlocks with fs reclaim, by setting up any needed
fscrypt_info structs prior to taking so many locks.
The test_dummy_encryption deadlock was reported by Daniel Rosenberg.
Reported-by: Daniel Rosenberg <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 7, 2021
This patch supports to migrate swapfile in aligned write mode during swapon in order to keep swapfile being aligned to section as much as possible, then pinned swapfile will locates fully filled section which may not affected by GC. However, for the case that swapfile's size is not aligned to section size, it will still leave last extent in file's tail as unaligned due to its size is smaller than section size, like case #2. case #1 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 4M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 1123352..1126399 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..7143]: 237568..241663 4096 0x1000 2: [7144..8191]: 245760..246807 1048 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..8191]: 249856..258047 8192 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) case #2 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 3M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 246808..249855 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..6143]: 237568..240663 3096 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..4095]: 258048..262143 4096 0x1000 1: [4096..6143]: 238616..240663 2048 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile: last extent is not aligned to section F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 21, 2021
This patch supports to migrate swapfile in aligned write mode during swapon in order to keep swapfile being aligned to section as much as possible, then pinned swapfile will locates fully filled section which may not affected by GC. However, for the case that swapfile's size is not aligned to section size, it will still leave last extent in file's tail as unaligned due to its size is smaller than section size, like case #2. case #1 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 4M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 1123352..1126399 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..7143]: 237568..241663 4096 0x1000 2: [7144..8191]: 245760..246807 1048 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..8191]: 249856..258047 8192 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) case #2 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 3M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 246808..249855 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..6143]: 237568..240663 3096 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..4095]: 258048..262143 4096 0x1000 1: [4096..6143]: 238616..240663 2048 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile: last extent is not aligned to section F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 21, 2021
This patch supports to migrate swapfile in aligned write mode during swapon in order to keep swapfile being aligned to section as much as possible, then pinned swapfile will locates fully filled section which may not affected by GC. However, for the case that swapfile's size is not aligned to section size, it will still leave last extent in file's tail as unaligned due to its size is smaller than section size, like case #2. case #1 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 4M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 1123352..1126399 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..7143]: 237568..241663 4096 0x1000 2: [7144..8191]: 245760..246807 1048 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..8191]: 249856..258047 8192 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) case #2 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 3M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 246808..249855 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..6143]: 237568..240663 3096 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..4095]: 258048..262143 4096 0x1000 1: [4096..6143]: 238616..240663 2048 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile: last extent is not aligned to section F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 21, 2021
This patch supports to migrate swapfile in aligned write mode during swapon in order to keep swapfile being aligned to section as much as possible, then pinned swapfile will locates fully filled section which may not affected by GC. However, for the case that swapfile's size is not aligned to section size, it will still leave last extent in file's tail as unaligned due to its size is smaller than section size, like case #2. case #1 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 4M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 1123352..1126399 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..7143]: 237568..241663 4096 0x1000 2: [7144..8191]: 245760..246807 1048 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..8191]: 249856..258047 8192 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) case #2 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 3M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 246808..249855 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..6143]: 237568..240663 3096 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..4095]: 258048..262143 4096 0x1000 1: [4096..6143]: 238616..240663 2048 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile: last extent is not aligned to section F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 21, 2021
This patch supports to migrate swapfile in aligned write mode during swapon in order to keep swapfile being aligned to section as much as possible, then pinned swapfile will locates fully filled section which may not affected by GC. However, for the case that swapfile's size is not aligned to section size, it will still leave last extent in file's tail as unaligned due to its size is smaller than section size, like case #2. case #1 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 4M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 1123352..1126399 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..7143]: 237568..241663 4096 0x1000 2: [7144..8191]: 245760..246807 1048 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..8191]: 249856..258047 8192 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) case #2 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 3M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 246808..249855 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..6143]: 237568..240663 3096 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..4095]: 258048..262143 4096 0x1000 1: [4096..6143]: 238616..240663 2048 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile: last extent is not aligned to section F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 21, 2021
This patch supports to migrate swapfile in aligned write mode during swapon in order to keep swapfile being aligned to section as much as possible, then pinned swapfile will locates fully filled section which may not affected by GC. However, for the case that swapfile's size is not aligned to section size, it will still leave last extent in file's tail as unaligned due to its size is smaller than section size, like case #2. case #1 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 4M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 1123352..1126399 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..7143]: 237568..241663 4096 0x1000 2: [7144..8191]: 245760..246807 1048 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..8191]: 249856..258047 8192 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) case #2 xfs_io -f /mnt/f2fs/file -c "pwrite 0 3M" -c "fsync" Before swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..3047]: 246808..249855 3048 0x1000 1: [3048..6143]: 237568..240663 3096 0x1001 After swapon: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..4095]: 258048..262143 4096 0x1000 1: [4096..6143]: 238616..240663 2048 0x1001 Kmsg: F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile: last extent is not aligned to section F2FS-fs (zram0): Swapfile (2) is not align to section: 1) creat(), 2) ioctl(F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE), 3) fallocate(2097152 * n) Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 20, 2021
xfstest generic/587 reports a deadlock issue as below:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc1 #69 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
repquota/8606 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff888022ac9320 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: f2fs_quota_sync+0x207/0x300 [f2fs]
but task is already holding lock:
ffff8880084bcde8 (&sbi->quota_sem){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: f2fs_quota_sync+0x59/0x300 [f2fs]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (&sbi->quota_sem){.+.+}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x648/0x10b0
lock_acquire+0x128/0x470
down_read+0x3b/0x2a0
f2fs_quota_sync+0x59/0x300 [f2fs]
f2fs_quota_on+0x48/0x100 [f2fs]
do_quotactl+0x5e3/0xb30
__x64_sys_quotactl+0x23a/0x4e0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #1 (&sbi->cp_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x648/0x10b0
lock_acquire+0x128/0x470
down_read+0x3b/0x2a0
f2fs_unlink+0x353/0x670 [f2fs]
vfs_unlink+0x1c7/0x380
do_unlinkat+0x413/0x4b0
__x64_sys_unlinkat+0x50/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.}-{3:3}:
check_prev_add+0xdc/0xb30
validate_chain+0xa67/0xb20
__lock_acquire+0x648/0x10b0
lock_acquire+0x128/0x470
down_write+0x39/0xc0
f2fs_quota_sync+0x207/0x300 [f2fs]
do_quotactl+0xaff/0xb30
__x64_sys_quotactl+0x23a/0x4e0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18 --> &sbi->cp_rwsem --> &sbi->quota_sem
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&sbi->quota_sem);
lock(&sbi->cp_rwsem);
lock(&sbi->quota_sem);
lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by repquota/8606:
#0: ffff88801efac0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#53){++++}-{3:3}, at: user_get_super+0xd9/0x190
#1: ffff8880084bc380 (&sbi->cp_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: f2fs_quota_sync+0x3e/0x300 [f2fs]
#2: ffff8880084bcde8 (&sbi->quota_sem){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: f2fs_quota_sync+0x59/0x300 [f2fs]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 6 PID: 8606 Comm: repquota Not tainted 5.14.0-rc1 #69
Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0xce/0x134
dump_stack+0x17/0x20
print_circular_bug.isra.0.cold+0x239/0x253
check_noncircular+0x1be/0x1f0
check_prev_add+0xdc/0xb30
validate_chain+0xa67/0xb20
__lock_acquire+0x648/0x10b0
lock_acquire+0x128/0x470
down_write+0x39/0xc0
f2fs_quota_sync+0x207/0x300 [f2fs]
do_quotactl+0xaff/0xb30
__x64_sys_quotactl+0x23a/0x4e0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x7f883b0b4efe
The root cause is ABBA deadlock of inode lock and cp_rwsem,
reorder locks in f2fs_quota_sync() as below to fix this issue:
- lock inode
- lock cp_rwsem
- lock quota_sem
Fixes: db6ec53 ("f2fs: add a rw_sem to cover quota flag changes")
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 20, 2021
xfstest generic/587 reports a deadlock issue as below:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc1 #69 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
repquota/8606 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff888022ac9320 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: f2fs_quota_sync+0x207/0x300 [f2fs]
but task is already holding lock:
ffff8880084bcde8 (&sbi->quota_sem){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: f2fs_quota_sync+0x59/0x300 [f2fs]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (&sbi->quota_sem){.+.+}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x648/0x10b0
lock_acquire+0x128/0x470
down_read+0x3b/0x2a0
f2fs_quota_sync+0x59/0x300 [f2fs]
f2fs_quota_on+0x48/0x100 [f2fs]
do_quotactl+0x5e3/0xb30
__x64_sys_quotactl+0x23a/0x4e0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #1 (&sbi->cp_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x648/0x10b0
lock_acquire+0x128/0x470
down_read+0x3b/0x2a0
f2fs_unlink+0x353/0x670 [f2fs]
vfs_unlink+0x1c7/0x380
do_unlinkat+0x413/0x4b0
__x64_sys_unlinkat+0x50/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.}-{3:3}:
check_prev_add+0xdc/0xb30
validate_chain+0xa67/0xb20
__lock_acquire+0x648/0x10b0
lock_acquire+0x128/0x470
down_write+0x39/0xc0
f2fs_quota_sync+0x207/0x300 [f2fs]
do_quotactl+0xaff/0xb30
__x64_sys_quotactl+0x23a/0x4e0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18 --> &sbi->cp_rwsem --> &sbi->quota_sem
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&sbi->quota_sem);
lock(&sbi->cp_rwsem);
lock(&sbi->quota_sem);
lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by repquota/8606:
#0: ffff88801efac0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#53){++++}-{3:3}, at: user_get_super+0xd9/0x190
#1: ffff8880084bc380 (&sbi->cp_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: f2fs_quota_sync+0x3e/0x300 [f2fs]
#2: ffff8880084bcde8 (&sbi->quota_sem){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: f2fs_quota_sync+0x59/0x300 [f2fs]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 6 PID: 8606 Comm: repquota Not tainted 5.14.0-rc1 #69
Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0xce/0x134
dump_stack+0x17/0x20
print_circular_bug.isra.0.cold+0x239/0x253
check_noncircular+0x1be/0x1f0
check_prev_add+0xdc/0xb30
validate_chain+0xa67/0xb20
__lock_acquire+0x648/0x10b0
lock_acquire+0x128/0x470
down_write+0x39/0xc0
f2fs_quota_sync+0x207/0x300 [f2fs]
do_quotactl+0xaff/0xb30
__x64_sys_quotactl+0x23a/0x4e0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x7f883b0b4efe
The root cause is ABBA deadlock of inode lock and cp_rwsem,
reorder locks in f2fs_quota_sync() as below to fix this issue:
- lock inode
- lock cp_rwsem
- lock quota_sem
Fixes: db6ec53 ("f2fs: add a rw_sem to cover quota flag changes")
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 3, 2022
Let's avoid false-alarmed lockdep warning. [ 58.914674] [T1501146] -> #2 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#20){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 58.915975] [T1501146] system_server: down_write+0x7c/0xe0 [ 58.916738] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_quota_sync+0x60/0x1a8 [ 58.917563] [T1501146] system_server: block_operations+0x16c/0x43c [ 58.918410] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_write_checkpoint+0x114/0x318 [ 58.919312] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_issue_checkpoint+0x178/0x21c [ 58.920214] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_sync_fs+0x48/0x6c [ 58.920999] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_do_sync_file+0x334/0x738 [ 58.921862] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_sync_file+0x30/0x48 [ 58.922667] [T1501146] system_server: __arm64_sys_fsync+0x84/0xf8 [ 58.923506] [T1501146] system_server: el0_svc_common.llvm.12821150825140585682+0xd8/0x20c [ 58.924604] [T1501146] system_server: do_el0_svc+0x28/0xa0 [ 58.925366] [T1501146] system_server: el0_svc+0x24/0x38 [ 58.926094] [T1501146] system_server: el0_sync_handler+0x88/0xec [ 58.926920] [T1501146] system_server: el0_sync+0x1b4/0x1c0 [ 58.927681] [T1501146] -> #1 (&sbi->cp_global_sem){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 58.928889] [T1501146] system_server: down_write+0x7c/0xe0 [ 58.929650] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_write_checkpoint+0xbc/0x318 [ 58.930541] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_issue_checkpoint+0x178/0x21c [ 58.931443] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_sync_fs+0x48/0x6c [ 58.932226] [T1501146] system_server: sync_filesystem+0xac/0x130 [ 58.933053] [T1501146] system_server: generic_shutdown_super+0x38/0x150 [ 58.933958] [T1501146] system_server: kill_block_super+0x24/0x58 [ 58.934791] [T1501146] system_server: kill_f2fs_super+0xcc/0x124 [ 58.935618] [T1501146] system_server: deactivate_locked_super+0x90/0x120 [ 58.936529] [T1501146] system_server: deactivate_super+0x74/0xac [ 58.937356] [T1501146] system_server: cleanup_mnt+0x128/0x168 [ 58.938150] [T1501146] system_server: __cleanup_mnt+0x18/0x28 [ 58.938944] [T1501146] system_server: task_work_run+0xb8/0x14c [ 58.939749] [T1501146] system_server: do_notify_resume+0x114/0x1e8 [ 58.940595] [T1501146] system_server: work_pending+0xc/0x5f0 [ 58.941375] [T1501146] -> #0 (&sbi->gc_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 58.942519] [T1501146] system_server: __lock_acquire+0x1270/0x2868 [ 58.943366] [T1501146] system_server: lock_acquire+0x114/0x294 [ 58.944169] [T1501146] system_server: down_write+0x7c/0xe0 [ 58.944930] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_issue_checkpoint+0x13c/0x21c [ 58.945831] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_sync_fs+0x48/0x6c [ 58.946614] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_do_sync_file+0x334/0x738 [ 58.947472] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_ioc_commit_atomic_write+0xc8/0x14c [ 58.948439] [T1501146] system_server: __f2fs_ioctl+0x674/0x154c [ 58.949253] [T1501146] system_server: f2fs_ioctl+0x54/0x88 [ 58.950018] [T1501146] system_server: __arm64_sys_ioctl+0xa8/0x110 [ 58.950865] [T1501146] system_server: el0_svc_common.llvm.12821150825140585682+0xd8/0x20c [ 58.951965] [T1501146] system_server: do_el0_svc+0x28/0xa0 [ 58.952727] [T1501146] system_server: el0_svc+0x24/0x38 [ 58.953454] [T1501146] system_server: el0_sync_handler+0x88/0xec [ 58.954279] [T1501146] system_server: el0_sync+0x1b4/0x1c0 Cc: [email protected] Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 29, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 29, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 29, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 29, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 29, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 4, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 4, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 4, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 4, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 11, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 11, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 11, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 11, 2022
It is possible that ino of dirent or orphan inode is corrupted in a fuzzed image, occasionally, if corrupted ino is equal to meta ino: meta_ino, node_ino or compress_ino, caller of f2fs_iget() from below call paths will get meta inode directly, it's not allowed, let's add sanity check to detect such cases. case #1 - recover_dentry - __f2fs_find_entry - f2fs_iget_retry case #2 - recover_orphan_inode - f2fs_iget_retry Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 13, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits.
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 13, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits.
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 13, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits. Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 13, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits.
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 13, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits.
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 20, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits. Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 23, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits. Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 23, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits. Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 23, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits. Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 26, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits. Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 26, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits. Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 26, 2023
This reverts commit 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr". That introduced a deadlock case: Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Let's take a look at the original issue back. Thread A: Thread B: -f2fs_getxattr -lookup_all_xattrs -xnid = F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_nid; -f2fs_setxattr -__f2fs_setxattr -write_all_xattrs -truncate_xattr_node ... ... -write_checkpoint ... ... -alloc_nid <- nid reuse -get_node_page -f2fs_bug_on <- nid != node_footer->nid I think we don't need to truncate xattr pages eagerly which introduces lots of data races without big benefits. Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 28, 2023
Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Fixes: 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr" Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 28, 2023
Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Fixes: 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr" Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
jaegeuk
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 28, 2023
Thread #1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread #2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Fixes: 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr" Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
asuka-mio
pushed a commit
to asuka-mio/f2fs-stable-4.19
that referenced
this issue
Sep 20, 2023
Thread jaegeuk#1: [122554.641906][ T92] f2fs_getxattr+0xd4/0x5fc -> waiting for f2fs_down_read(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [122554.641927][ T92] __f2fs_get_acl+0x50/0x284 [122554.641948][ T92] f2fs_init_acl+0x84/0x54c [122554.641969][ T92] f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x460/0x5f0 [122554.641990][ T92] f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x11c/0x350 -> Locked dir->inode_page by f2fs_get_node_page() [122554.642009][ T92] f2fs_do_add_link+0x100/0x1e4 [122554.642025][ T92] f2fs_create+0xf4/0x22c [122554.642047][ T92] vfs_create+0x130/0x1f4 Thread jaegeuk#2: [123996.386358][ T92] __get_node_page+0x8c/0x504 -> waiting for dir->inode_page lock [123996.386383][ T92] read_all_xattrs+0x11c/0x1f4 [123996.386405][ T92] __f2fs_setxattr+0xcc/0x528 [123996.386424][ T92] f2fs_setxattr+0x158/0x1f4 -> f2fs_down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem); [123996.386443][ T92] __f2fs_set_acl+0x328/0x430 [123996.386618][ T92] f2fs_set_acl+0x38/0x50 [123996.386642][ T92] posix_acl_chmod+0xc8/0x1c8 [123996.386669][ T92] f2fs_setattr+0x5e0/0x6bc [123996.386689][ T92] notify_change+0x4d8/0x580 [123996.386717][ T92] chmod_common+0xd8/0x184 [123996.386748][ T92] do_fchmodat+0x60/0x124 [123996.386766][ T92] __arm64_sys_fchmodat+0x28/0x3c Fixes: 27161f1 "f2fs: avoid race in between read xattr & write xattr" Cc: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi,
sorry to post an issue its just some confusion.
In every example I see the mount or fstab entry has the discard option set whilst the discard policy would seem to be inherent to the fle system as the default is set on mkfs.f2fs.
Does the discard option of mount / fstab overule the default mkfs.f2fs -t 1 that would seem to be inherent to the f2fs file system or is it just a switch to use standard discard or use f2fs policy?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: