On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:49:58PM +0800, Li Xi wrote:
> There are multiple places where ext4_mark_inode_dirty() is called holding
> write lock of EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem. However, if
> ext4_mark_inode_dirty() needs to expand inode size, this will cause
> deadlock when ext4_xattr_block_set() tries to get read lock of
> EXT4_I(inode)->i_data_sem.
This was with inline data enabled, right?
The problem with your change is that the reason why the locking is the
way it is was to fix a bug which Jan Kara identified in commit
90e775b71ac4e68: "ext4: fix lost truncate due to race with writeback".
ext4: fix lost truncate due to race with writeback
The following race can lead to a loss of i_disksize update from truncate
thus resulting in a wrong inode size if the inode size isn't updated
again before inode is reclaimed:
ext4_setattr() mpage_map_and_submit_extent()
EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize = attr->ia_size;
... ...
disksize = ((loff_t)mpd->first_page) << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT
/* False because i_size isn't
* updated yet */
if (disksize > i_size_read(inode))
/* True, because i_disksize is
* already truncated */
if (disksize > EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize)
/* Overwrite i_disksize
* update from truncate */
ext4_update_i_disksize()
i_size_write(inode, attr->ia_size);
For other places updating i_disksize such race cannot happen because
i_mutex prevents these races. Writeback is the only place where we do
not hold i_mutex and we cannot grab it there because of lock ordering.
We fix the race by doing both i_disksize and i_size update in truncate
atomically under i_data_sem and in mpage_map_and_submit_extent() we move
the check against i_size under i_data_sem as well.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So I think we need to find another way to fix this problem. There are
a limited number of places before we call ext4_mark_inode_dirty()
where i_size will grow such that the inline data code might need to
move the data out from i_blocks[].
It might make more sense to have a helper function which checks to see
if this condition holds, and do the converation away from using
inline_data for that inode *before* we call ext4_mark_inode_dirty().
Does that make sense to you?
Regards,
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
