kernel.git/fs/btrfs/backref.c, branch linux-5.16.y

btrfs: remove BUG_ON(!eie) in find_parent_nodes

2022-01-27T11:02:29Z

[ Upstream commit 9f05c09d6baef789726346397438cca4ec43c3ee ] If we're looking for leafs that point to a data extent we want to record the extent items that point at our bytenr. At this point we have the reference and we know for a fact that this leaf should have a reference to our bytenr. However if there's some sort of corruption we may not find any references to our leaf, and thus could end up with eie == NULL. Replace this BUG_ON() with an ASSERT() and then return -EUCLEAN for the mortals. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

btrfs: remove BUG_ON() in find_parent_nodes()

2022-01-27T11:02:29Z

[ Upstream commit fcba0120edf88328524a4878d1d6f4ad39f2ec81 ] We search for an extent entry with .offset = -1, which shouldn't be a thing, but corruption happens. Add an ASSERT() for the developers, return -EUCLEAN for mortals. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

btrfs: remove ignore_offset argument from btrfs_find_all_roots()

2021-08-23T11:19:01Z

Currently all the callers of btrfs_find_all_roots() pass a value of false for its ignore_offset argument. This makes the argument pointless and we can remove it and make btrfs_find_all_roots() always pass false as the ignore_offset argument for btrfs_find_all_roots_safe(). So just do that. Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: pass NULL as trans to btrfs_search_slot if we only want to search

2021-08-23T11:19:00Z

Using a transaction in btrfs_search_slot is only useful when we are searching to add or modify the tree. When the function is used for searching, insert length and mod arguments are 0, there is no need to use a transaction. No functional changes, changing for consistency. Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: fix lock inversion problem when doing qgroup extent tracing

2021-07-22T13:50:07Z

At btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post() we call btrfs_find_all_roots() with a NULL value as the transaction handle argument, which makes that function take the commit_root_sem semaphore, which is necessary when we don't hold a transaction handle or any other mechanism to prevent a transaction commit from wiping out commit roots. However btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post() can be called in a context where we are holding a write lock on an extent buffer from a subvolume tree, namely from btrfs_truncate_inode_items(), called either during truncate or unlink operations. In this case we end up with a lock inversion problem because the commit_root_sem is a higher level lock, always supposed to be acquired before locking any extent buffer. Lockdep detects this lock inversion problem since we switched the extent buffer locks from custom locks to semaphores, and when running btrfs/158 from fstests, it reported the following trace: [ 9057.626435] ====================================================== [ 9057.627541] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 9057.628334] 5.14.0-rc2-btrfs-next-93 #1 Not tainted [ 9057.628961] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 9057.629867] kworker/u16:4/30781 is trying to acquire lock: [ 9057.630824] ffff8e2590f58760 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x24/0x110 [btrfs] [ 9057.632542] but task is already holding lock: [ 9057.633551] ffff8e25582d4b70 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: iterate_extent_inodes+0x10b/0x280 [btrfs] [ 9057.635255] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 9057.636292] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 9057.637240] -> #1 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}: [ 9057.638138] down_read+0x46/0x140 [ 9057.638648] btrfs_find_all_roots+0x41/0x80 [btrfs] [ 9057.639398] btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post+0x37/0x70 [btrfs] [ 9057.640283] btrfs_add_delayed_data_ref+0x418/0x490 [btrfs] [ 9057.641114] btrfs_free_extent+0x35/0xb0 [btrfs] [ 9057.641819] btrfs_truncate_inode_items+0x424/0xf70 [btrfs] [ 9057.642643] btrfs_evict_inode+0x454/0x4f0 [btrfs] [ 9057.643418] evict+0xcf/0x1d0 [ 9057.643895] do_unlinkat+0x1e9/0x300 [ 9057.644525] do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0 [ 9057.645110] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae [ 9057.645835] -> #0 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}: [ 9057.646600] __lock_acquire+0x130e/0x2210 [ 9057.647248] lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310 [ 9057.647773] down_read_nested+0x4b/0x140 [ 9057.648350] __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x24/0x110 [btrfs] [ 9057.649175] btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x31/0x40 [btrfs] [ 9057.650010] btrfs_search_slot+0x537/0xc00 [btrfs] [ 9057.650849] scrub_print_warning_inode+0x89/0x370 [btrfs] [ 9057.651733] iterate_extent_inodes+0x1e3/0x280 [btrfs] [ 9057.652501] scrub_print_warning+0x15d/0x2f0 [btrfs] [ 9057.653264] scrub_handle_errored_block.isra.0+0x135f/0x1640 [btrfs] [ 9057.654295] scrub_bio_end_io_worker+0x101/0x2e0 [btrfs] [ 9057.655111] btrfs_work_helper+0xf8/0x400 [btrfs] [ 9057.655831] process_one_work+0x247/0x5a0 [ 9057.656425] worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0 [ 9057.656993] kthread+0x155/0x180 [ 9057.657494] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 [ 9057.658030] other info that might help us debug this: [ 9057.659064] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 9057.659824] CPU0 CPU1 [ 9057.660402] ---- ---- [ 9057.660988] lock(&fs_info->commit_root_sem); [ 9057.661581] lock(btrfs-tree-00); [ 9057.662348] lock(&fs_info->commit_root_sem); [ 9057.663254] lock(btrfs-tree-00); [ 9057.663690] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 9057.664437] 4 locks held by kworker/u16:4/30781: [ 9057.665023] #0: ffff8e25922a1148 ((wq_completion)btrfs-scrub){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1c7/0x5a0 [ 9057.666260] #1: ffffabb3451ffe70 ((work_completion)(&work->normal_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1c7/0x5a0 [ 9057.667639] #2: ffff8e25922da198 (&ret->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: scrub_handle_errored_block.isra.0+0x5d2/0x1640 [btrfs] [ 9057.669017] #3: ffff8e25582d4b70 (&fs_info->commit_root_sem){++++}-{3:3}, at: iterate_extent_inodes+0x10b/0x280 [btrfs] [ 9057.670408] stack backtrace: [ 9057.670976] CPU: 7 PID: 30781 Comm: kworker/u16:4 Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2-btrfs-next-93 #1 [ 9057.672030] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 [ 9057.673492] Workqueue: btrfs-scrub btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] [ 9057.674258] Call Trace: [ 9057.674588] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72 [ 9057.675083] check_noncircular+0xf3/0x110 [ 9057.675611] __lock_acquire+0x130e/0x2210 [ 9057.676132] lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310 [ 9057.676605] ? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x24/0x110 [btrfs] [ 9057.677313] ? lock_is_held_type+0xe8/0x140 [ 9057.677849] down_read_nested+0x4b/0x140 [ 9057.678349] ? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x24/0x110 [btrfs] [ 9057.679068] __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x24/0x110 [btrfs] [ 9057.679760] btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x31/0x40 [btrfs] [ 9057.680458] btrfs_search_slot+0x537/0xc00 [btrfs] [ 9057.681083] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x40 [ 9057.681594] ? btrfs_find_all_roots_safe+0x11f/0x140 [btrfs] [ 9057.682336] scrub_print_warning_inode+0x89/0x370 [btrfs] [ 9057.683058] ? btrfs_find_all_roots_safe+0x11f/0x140 [btrfs] [ 9057.683834] ? scrub_write_block_to_dev_replace+0xb0/0xb0 [btrfs] [ 9057.684632] iterate_extent_inodes+0x1e3/0x280 [btrfs] [ 9057.685316] scrub_print_warning+0x15d/0x2f0 [btrfs] [ 9057.685977] ? ___ratelimit+0xa4/0x110 [ 9057.686460] scrub_handle_errored_block.isra.0+0x135f/0x1640 [btrfs] [ 9057.687316] scrub_bio_end_io_worker+0x101/0x2e0 [btrfs] [ 9057.688021] btrfs_work_helper+0xf8/0x400 [btrfs] [ 9057.688649] ? lock_is_held_type+0xe8/0x140 [ 9057.689180] process_one_work+0x247/0x5a0 [ 9057.689696] worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0 [ 9057.690175] ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0 [ 9057.690731] kthread+0x155/0x180 [ 9057.691158] ? set_kthread_struct+0x40/0x40 [ 9057.691697] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 Fix this by making btrfs_find_all_roots() never attempt to lock the commit_root_sem when it is called from btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post(). We can't just pass a non-NULL transaction handle to btrfs_find_all_roots() from btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post(), because that would make backref lookup not use commit roots and acquire read locks on extent buffers, and therefore could deadlock when btrfs_qgroup_trace_extent_post() is called from the btrfs_truncate_inode_items() code path which has acquired a write lock on an extent buffer of the subvolume btree. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19+ Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: fix typos in comments

2021-06-22T12:11:57Z

Fix typos that have snuck in since the last round. Found by codespell. Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: move the tree mod log code into its own file

2021-04-19T15:25:16Z

The tree modification log, which records modifications done to btrees, is quite large and currently spread all over ctree.c, which is a huge file already. To make things better organized, move all that code into its own separate source and header files. Functions and definitions that are used outside of the module (mostly by ctree.c) are renamed so that they start with a "btrfs_" prefix. Everything else remains unchanged. This makes it easier to go over the tree modification log code every time I need to go read it to fix a bug. Reviewed-by: Anand Jain Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana Reviewed-by: David Sterba [ minor comment updates ] Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: do not warn if we can't find the reloc root when looking up backref

2021-02-08T21:58:56Z

The backref code is looking for a reloc_root that corresponds to the given fs root. However any number of things could have gone wrong while initializing that reloc_root, like ENOMEM while trying to allocate the root itself, or EIO while trying to write the root item. This would result in no corresponding reloc_root being in the reloc root cache, and thus would return NULL when we do the find_reloc_root() call. Because of this we do not want to WARN_ON(). This presumably was meant to catch developer errors, cases where we messed up adding the reloc root. However we can easily hit this case with error injection, and thus should not do a WARN_ON(). CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.10+ Reported-by: Zygo Blaxell Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: document btrfs_check_shared parameters

2021-02-08T21:58:54Z

Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba

btrfs: do not cleanup upper nodes in btrfs_backref_cleanup_node

2021-02-08T21:58:52Z

Zygo reported the following panic when testing my error handling patches for relocation: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/backref.c:2545! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI CPU: 3 PID: 8472 Comm: btrfs Tainted: G W 14 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, Call Trace: btrfs_backref_error_cleanup+0x4df/0x530 build_backref_tree+0x1a5/0x700 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30 ? release_extent_buffer+0x225/0x280 ? free_extent_buffer.part.52+0xd7/0x140 relocate_tree_blocks+0x2a6/0xb60 ? kasan_unpoison_shadow+0x35/0x50 ? do_relocation+0xc10/0xc10 ? kasan_kmalloc+0x9/0x10 ? kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x6a3/0xcb0 ? free_extent_buffer.part.52+0xd7/0x140 ? rb_insert_color+0x342/0x360 ? add_tree_block.isra.36+0x236/0x2b0 relocate_block_group+0x2eb/0x780 ? merge_reloc_roots+0x470/0x470 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x26e/0x4c0 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x52/0x120 btrfs_balance+0xe2e/0x18f0 ? pvclock_clocksource_read+0xeb/0x190 ? btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x120/0x120 ? lock_contended+0x620/0x6e0 ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x1e0/0x1e0 ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa8/0x140 btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x1f9/0x460 btrfs_ioctl+0x24c8/0x4380 ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20 ? check_chain_key+0x1f4/0x2f0 ? __asan_loadN+0xf/0x20 ? btrfs_ioctl_get_supported_features+0x30/0x30 ? kvm_sched_clock_read+0x18/0x30 ? check_chain_key+0x1f4/0x2f0 ? lock_downgrade+0x3f0/0x3f0 ? handle_mm_fault+0xad6/0x2150 ? do_vfs_ioctl+0xfc/0x9d0 ? ioctl_file_clone+0xe0/0xe0 ? check_flags.part.50+0x6c/0x1e0 ? check_flags.part.50+0x6c/0x1e0 ? check_flags+0x26/0x30 ? lock_is_held_type+0xc3/0xf0 ? syscall_enter_from_user_mode+0x1b/0x60 ? do_syscall_64+0x13/0x80 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0xa1/0xd0 ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20 ? __fget_light+0xae/0x110 __x64_sys_ioctl+0xc3/0x100 do_syscall_64+0x37/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 This occurs because of this check if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(&upper->rb_node)) BUG_ON(!list_empty(&node->upper)); As we are dropping the backref node, if we discover that our upper node in the edge we just cleaned up isn't linked into the cache that we are now done with this node, thus the BUG_ON(). However this is an erroneous assumption, as we will look up all the references for a node first, and then process the pending edges. All of the 'upper' nodes in our pending edges won't be in the cache's rb_tree yet, because they haven't been processed. We could very well have many edges still left to cleanup on this node. The fact is we simply do not need this check, we can just process all of the edges only for this node, because below this check we do the following if (list_empty(&upper->lower)) { list_add_tail(&upper->lower, &cache->leaves); upper->lowest = 1; } If the upper node truly isn't used yet, then we add it to the cache->leaves list to be cleaned up later. If it is still used then the last child node that has it linked into its node will add it to the leaves list and then it will be cleaned up. Fix this problem by dropping this logic altogether. With this fix I no longer see the panic when testing with error injection in the backref code. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+ Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Signed-off-by: David Sterba