6.7-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Tavian Barnes <tavianator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit ef1e68236b9153c27cb7cf29ead0c532870d4215 upstream.
There are reports from tree-checker that detects corrupted nodes,
without any obvious pattern so possibly an overwrite in memory.
After some debugging it turns out there's a race when reading an extent
buffer the uptodate status can be missed.
To prevent concurrent reads for the same extent buffer,
read_extent_buffer_pages() performs these checks:
/* (1) */
if (test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_UPTODATE, &eb->bflags))
return 0;
/* (2) */
if (test_and_set_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_READING, &eb->bflags))
goto done;
At this point, it seems safe to start the actual read operation. Once
that completes, end_bbio_meta_read() does
/* (3) */
set_extent_buffer_uptodate(eb);
/* (4) */
clear_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_READING, &eb->bflags);
Normally, this is enough to ensure only one read happens, and all other
callers wait for it to finish before returning. Unfortunately, there is
a racey interleaving:
Thread A | Thread B | Thread C
---------+----------+---------
(1) | |
| (1) |
(2) | |
(3) | |
(4) | |
| (2) |
| | (1)
When this happens, thread B kicks of an unnecessary read. Worse, thread
C will see UPTODATE set and return immediately, while the read from
thread B is still in progress. This race could result in tree-checker
errors like this as the extent buffer is concurrently modified:
BTRFS critical (device dm-0): corrupted node, root=256
block=8550954455682405139 owner mismatch, have 11858205567642294356
expect [256, 18446744073709551360]
Fix it by testing UPTODATE again after setting the READING bit, and if
it's been set, skip the unnecessary read.
Fixes: d7172f52e993 ("btrfs: use per-buffer locking for extent_buffer reading")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CAHk-=whNdMaN9ntZ47XRKP6DBes2E5w7fi-0U3H2+PS18p+Pzw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/f51a6d5d7432455a6a858d51b49ecac183e0bbc9.1706312914.git.wqu@xxxxxxxx/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/c7241ea4-fcc6-48d2-98c8-b5ea790d6c89@xxxxxxx/
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 6.5+
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tavian Barnes <tavianator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
[ minor update of changelog ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 13 +++++++++++++
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
@@ -4052,6 +4052,19 @@ int read_extent_buffer_pages(struct exte
if (test_and_set_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_READING, &eb->bflags))
goto done;
+ /*
+ * Between the initial test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_UPTODATE) and the above
+ * test_and_set_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_READING), someone else could have
+ * started and finished reading the same eb. In this case, UPTODATE
+ * will now be set, and we shouldn't read it in again.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_UPTODATE, &eb->bflags))) {
+ clear_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_READING, &eb->bflags);
+ smp_mb__after_atomic();
+ wake_up_bit(&eb->bflags, EXTENT_BUFFER_READING);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
clear_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_READ_ERR, &eb->bflags);
eb->read_mirror = 0;
check_buffer_tree_ref(eb);
