blob: bfd3a23f3b5c5b7d08d2e500ba3734f3e15e0e7a [file] [log] [blame]
From e0dc4a635f191fcfcffd2bcbdc330b38f56aa3ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:12:28 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: move the chunk_mutex in btrfs_read_chunk_tree
commit 01d01caf19ff7c537527d352d169c4368375c0a1 upstream.
We are currently getting this lockdep splat in btrfs/161:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.8.0-rc5+ #20 Tainted: G E
------------------------------------------------------
mount/678048 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff9b769f15b6e0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
but task is already holding lock:
ffff9b76abdb08d0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x6a/0x800 [btrfs]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0
btrfs_init_new_device+0x2d2/0x1240 [btrfs]
btrfs_ioctl+0x1de/0x2d20 [btrfs]
ksys_ioctl+0x87/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1240/0x2460
lock_acquire+0xab/0x360
__mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0
clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x330/0x800 [btrfs]
open_ctree+0xb7c/0x18ce [btrfs]
btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x13/0xfa [btrfs]
legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
fc_mount+0xe/0x40
vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0x90
btrfs_mount+0x13b/0x3e0 [btrfs]
legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
do_mount+0x7de/0xb30
__x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0
do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by mount/678048:
#0: ffff9b75ff5fb0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#63/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: alloc_super+0xb5/0x380
#1: ffffffffc0c2fbc8 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x54/0x800 [btrfs]
#2: ffff9b76abdb08d0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x6a/0x800 [btrfs]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 2 PID: 678048 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 5.8.0-rc5+ #20
Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M./890FX Deluxe5, BIOS P1.40 05/03/2011
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x96/0xd0
check_noncircular+0x162/0x180
__lock_acquire+0x1240/0x2460
? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20
lock_acquire+0xab/0x360
? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
__mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0
? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60
? cpumask_next+0x16/0x20
? module_assert_mutex_or_preempt+0x14/0x40
? __module_address+0x28/0xf0
? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
? static_obj+0x4f/0x60
? lockdep_init_map_waits+0x43/0x200
? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x330/0x800 [btrfs]
open_ctree+0xb7c/0x18ce [btrfs]
? super_setup_bdi_name+0x79/0xd0
btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x13/0xfa [btrfs]
? vfs_parse_fs_string+0x84/0xb0
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60
? kfree+0x2b5/0x310
legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
fc_mount+0xe/0x40
vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0x90
btrfs_mount+0x13b/0x3e0 [btrfs]
? cred_has_capability+0x7c/0x120
? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60
? legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
do_mount+0x7de/0xb30
? memdup_user+0x4e/0x90
__x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0
do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
This is because btrfs_read_chunk_tree() can come upon DEV_EXTENT's and
then read the device, which takes the device_list_mutex. The
device_list_mutex needs to be taken before the chunk_mutex, so this is a
problem. We only really need the chunk mutex around adding the chunk,
so move the mutex around read_one_chunk.
An argument could be made that we don't even need the chunk_mutex here
as it's during mount, and we are protected by various other locks.
However we already have special rules for ->device_list_mutex, and I'd
rather not have another special case for ->chunk_mutex.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19+
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index cf2f2b6ab663..81edabb2524d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -7245,7 +7245,6 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
* otherwise we don't need it.
*/
mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex);
- mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
/*
* It is possible for mount and umount to race in such a way that
@@ -7290,7 +7289,9 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
} else if (found_key.type == BTRFS_CHUNK_ITEM_KEY) {
struct btrfs_chunk *chunk;
chunk = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_chunk);
+ mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
ret = read_one_chunk(&found_key, leaf, chunk);
+ mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
if (ret)
goto error;
}
@@ -7320,7 +7321,6 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
}
ret = 0;
error:
- mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&uuid_mutex);
btrfs_free_path(path);
--
2.27.0