On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 04:39:02PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 07/12/2017 03:03 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:56:36PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >> On 10.07.2017 16:12, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>> On 4.07.2017 14:49, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> >>>> Several distributions mount the "proper root" as ro during initrd and
> >>>> then remount it as rw before pivot_root(2). Thus, if a rescan had been
> >>>> aborted by a previous shutdown, the rescan would never be resumed.
> >>>>
> >>>> This issue would manifest itself as several btrfs ioctl(2)s causing the
> >>>> entire machine to hang when btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion was hit
> >>>> (due to the fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running flag being set but the rescan
> >>>> itself not being resumed). Notably, Docker's btrfs storage driver makes
> >>>> regular use of BTRFS_QUOTA_CTL_DISABLE and BTRFS_IOC_QUOTA_RESCAN_WAIT
> >>>> (causing this problem to be manifested on boot for some machines).
> >>>>
> >>>> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v3.11+
> >>>> Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Fixes: b382a324b60f ("Btrfs: fix qgroup rescan resume on mount")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@xxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, looking at the code it seems that b382a324b60f ("Btrfs: fix
> >>> qgroup rescan resume on mount") missed adding the qgroup_rescan_resume
> >>> in the remount path. One thing which I couldn't verify though is whether
> >>> reading fs_info->qgroup_flags without any locking is safe from remount
> >>> context.
> >>>
> >>> During remount I don't see any locks taken that prevent operations which
> >>> can modify qgroup_flags.
> >>
> >> Further inspection reveals that the access rules to qgroup_flags are
> >> somewhat broken so this patch doesn't really make things any worse than
> >> they are.
> >
> > The usage follows a pattern for a bitfield, updated by set_bit/clear_bit
> > etc. The updates to the state or inconsistency is not safe, so some
> > updates could get lost under some circumstances.
> >
> > Patch added to devel queue, possibly will be submitted to 4.13 so stable
> > can pick it.
>
> Looks like it wasn't merged in the 4.13 window (so stable hasn't picked
> it), will this be submitted for 4.14? Thanks.
Sorry this didn't make it to 4.13, the patch is in the queue for 4.14.