On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:12:32AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:52:43AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 12:54:25PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > Prior to commit df732b29c8 ("xfs: call xlog_state_release_iclog with
> > > l_icloglock held"), xlog_state_release_iclog() always performed a
> > > locked check of the iclog error state before proceeding into the
> > > sync state processing code. As of this commit, part of
> > > xlog_state_release_iclog() was open-coded into
> > > xfs_log_release_iclog() and as a result the locked error state check
> > > was lost.
> > >
> > > The lockless check still exists, but this doesn't account for the
> > > possibility of a race with a shutdown being performed by another
> > > task causing the iclog state to change while the original task waits
> > > on ->l_icloglock. This has reproduced very rarely via generic/475
> > > and manifests as an assert failure in __xlog_state_release_iclog()
> > > due to an unexpected iclog state.
> > >
> > > Restore the locked error state check in xlog_state_release_iclog()
> > > to ensure that an iclog state update via shutdown doesn't race with
> > > the iclog release state processing code.
> > >
> > > Fixes: df732b29c807 ("xfs: call xlog_state_release_iclog with l_icloglock held")
> > > Reported-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > v2:
> > > - Include Fixes tag.
> > > - Use common error path to include shutdown call.
> > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20200214181528.24046-1-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_log.c | 13 +++++++++----
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> > > index f6006d94a581..796ff37d5bb5 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> > > @@ -605,18 +605,23 @@ xfs_log_release_iclog(
> > > struct xlog *log = mp->m_log;
> > > bool sync;
> > >
> > > - if (iclog->ic_state == XLOG_STATE_IOERROR) {
> > > - xfs_force_shutdown(mp, SHUTDOWN_LOG_IO_ERROR);
> > > - return -EIO;
> > > - }
> >
> > hmmmm.
> >
> > xfs_force_shutdown() will does nothing if the iclog at the head of
> > the log->iclog list is marked with XLOG_STATE_IOERROR before IO is
> > submitted. In general, that is the case here as the head iclog is
> > what xlog_state_get_iclog_space() returns.
> >
> > i.e. XLOG_STATE_IOERROR here implies the log has already been shut
> > down because the state is IOERROR rather than ACTIVE or WANT_SYNC as
> > was set when the iclog was obtained from
> > xlog_state_get_iclog_space().
> >
>
> I'm not sure that assumption is always true. If the iclog is (was)
> WANT_SYNC, for example, then it's already been switched out from the
> head of that list. That might only happen if a checkpoint happens to
> align nicely with the end of an iclog, but that's certainly possible. We
> also need to consider that ->l_icloglock cycles here and thus somebody
> else could switch out the head iclog..
>
> > > + if (iclog->ic_state == XLOG_STATE_IOERROR)
> > > + goto error;
> > >
> > > if (atomic_dec_and_lock(&iclog->ic_refcnt, &log->l_icloglock)) {
> > > + if (iclog->ic_state == XLOG_STATE_IOERROR) {
> > > + spin_unlock(&log->l_icloglock);
> > > + goto error;
> > > + }
> > > sync = __xlog_state_release_iclog(log, iclog);
> > > spin_unlock(&log->l_icloglock);
> > > if (sync)
> > > xlog_sync(log, iclog);
> > > }
> > > return 0;
> > > +error:
> > > + xfs_force_shutdown(mp, SHUTDOWN_LOG_IO_ERROR);
> > > + return -EIO;
> >
> > Hence I suspect that this should be ASSERT(XLOG_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(log))
> > just like is in xfs_log_force_umount() when this pre-existing log
> > IO error condition is tripped over...
> >
>
> I think this change is fundamentally correct based on the simple fact
> that we only ever set XLOG_STATE_IOERROR in the shutdown path. That
> said, the assert would be potentially racy against the shutdown path
> without any ordering guarantee that the release path might see the iclog
> state update prior to the log state update and lead to a potentially
> false negative assert failure. I suspect this is why the shutdown call
> might have been made from here in the first place (and partly why I
> didn't bother with it in the restored locked state check).
>
> Given the context of this patch (fixing a regression) and the practical
> history of this code (and the annoying process of identifying and
> tracking down the source of these kind of shutdown buglets), I'm
> inclined to have this patch preserve the historical and relatively
> proven behavior as much as possible and consider further cleanups
> separately...
That sounds reasonable to me (who has at this point missed most of the
discussion about this patch). Is there going to be a v3 of this patch?
Or has all of the further discussion centered around further cleanups,
and this one is good to go?
--D
> Brian
>
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave.
> > --
> > Dave Chinner
> > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
