Message ID | 20221220150551.653925-1-chengzhihao1@huawei.com |
---|---|
State | Superseded |
Headers | show |
Series | [RFC] Fix data missing when reusing bh which is ready to be checkpointed | expand |
On Tue 20-12-22 23:05:51, Zhihao Cheng wrote: > From: zhanchengbin <zhanchengbin1@huawei.com> > > Following process will make data lost and could lead to a filesystem > corrupted problem: > > 1. jh(bh) is inserted into T1->t_checkpoint_list, bh is dirty, and > jh->b_transaction = NULL > 2. T1 is added into journal->j_checkpoint_transactions. > 3. Get bh prepare to write while doing checkpoing: > PA PB > do_get_write_access jbd2_log_do_checkpoint > spin_lock(&jh->b_state_lock) > if (buffer_dirty(bh)) > clear_buffer_dirty(bh) // clear buffer dirty > set_buffer_jbddirty(bh) > transaction = > journal->j_checkpoint_transactions > jh = transaction->t_checkpoint_list > if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) > __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh) > // bh won't be flushed > jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail > __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved) > 4. Aborting journal/Power-cut before writing latest bh on journal area. > > In this way we get a corrupted filesystem with bh'data lost. > > Fix it by wrapping clear_buffer_dirty(bh) and jh->b_transaction setting > into journal->j_list_lock, so that jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() will wait > until jh's new transaction fininshed even bh is currently not dirty. > > Cc: <stable@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: zhanchengbin <zhanchengbin1@huawei.com> > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com> > Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> > --- > This is a quick fix, I need some suggestions about this patch, whether > it will import new problems if this patch is applied. > Yi suggests that the formal solution could be splitting > journal->j_list_lock into two locks: one protects checkpoint list and > the other one for other lists. Besides, jh->b_state_lock should be > held while traversing transaction->t_checkpoint_list in > jbd2_log_do_checkpoint()/journal_shrink_one_cp_list(). > > fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Good catch! Did you find it by code inspection or were you able to actually trigger this problem? I think there might be a simpler fix of the problem. Move the clearing of buffer_dirty bit just before the call to __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(). We'll need to keep the buffer locked somewhat longer but that should not be a huge deal. Honza > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c > index 6a404ac1c178..d22460001d6b 100644 > --- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c > +++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c > @@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh, > start_lock = jiffies; > lock_buffer(bh); > spin_lock(&jh->b_state_lock); > + spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock); > > /* If it takes too long to lock the buffer, trace it */ > time_lock = jbd2_time_diff(start_lock, jiffies); > @@ -1039,6 +1040,7 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh, > > error = -EROFS; > if (is_handle_aborted(handle)) { > + spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock); > spin_unlock(&jh->b_state_lock); > goto out; > } > @@ -1049,8 +1051,10 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh, > * b_next_transaction points to it > */ > if (jh->b_transaction == transaction || > - jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) > + jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) { > + spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock); > goto done; > + } > > /* > * this is the first time this transaction is touching this buffer, > @@ -1073,11 +1077,11 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh, > * Paired with barrier in jbd2_write_access_granted() > */ > smp_wmb(); > - spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock); > __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved); > spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock); > goto done; > } > + spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock); > /* > * If there is already a copy-out version of this buffer, then we don't > * need to make another one > -- > 2.31.1 >
在 2022/12/21 18:13, Jan Kara 写道: > On Tue 20-12-22 23:05:51, Zhihao Cheng wrote: >> From: zhanchengbin <zhanchengbin1@huawei.com> >> >> Following process will make data lost and could lead to a filesystem >> corrupted problem: >> >> 1. jh(bh) is inserted into T1->t_checkpoint_list, bh is dirty, and >> jh->b_transaction = NULL >> 2. T1 is added into journal->j_checkpoint_transactions. >> 3. Get bh prepare to write while doing checkpoing: >> PA PB >> do_get_write_access jbd2_log_do_checkpoint >> spin_lock(&jh->b_state_lock) >> if (buffer_dirty(bh)) >> clear_buffer_dirty(bh) // clear buffer dirty >> set_buffer_jbddirty(bh) >> transaction = >> journal->j_checkpoint_transactions >> jh = transaction->t_checkpoint_list >> if (!buffer_dirty(bh)) >> __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint(jh) >> // bh won't be flushed >> jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail >> __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved) >> 4. Aborting journal/Power-cut before writing latest bh on journal area. [...] >> >> fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 8 ++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Good catch! Did you find it by code inspection or were you able to actually > trigger this problem? By code inspection. Reproducer: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216898
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c index 6a404ac1c178..d22460001d6b 100644 --- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c +++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c @@ -990,6 +990,7 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh, start_lock = jiffies; lock_buffer(bh); spin_lock(&jh->b_state_lock); + spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock); /* If it takes too long to lock the buffer, trace it */ time_lock = jbd2_time_diff(start_lock, jiffies); @@ -1039,6 +1040,7 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh, error = -EROFS; if (is_handle_aborted(handle)) { + spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock); spin_unlock(&jh->b_state_lock); goto out; } @@ -1049,8 +1051,10 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh, * b_next_transaction points to it */ if (jh->b_transaction == transaction || - jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) + jh->b_next_transaction == transaction) { + spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock); goto done; + } /* * this is the first time this transaction is touching this buffer, @@ -1073,11 +1077,11 @@ do_get_write_access(handle_t *handle, struct journal_head *jh, * Paired with barrier in jbd2_write_access_granted() */ smp_wmb(); - spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock); __jbd2_journal_file_buffer(jh, transaction, BJ_Reserved); spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock); goto done; } + spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock); /* * If there is already a copy-out version of this buffer, then we don't * need to make another one