Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
btrfs: transaction: Avoid deadlock due to bad initialization timing o…
…f fs_info::journal_info commit fcc9973 upstream. [BUG] One run of btrfs/063 triggered the following lockdep warning: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 5.6.0-rc7-custom+ linux-sunxi#48 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- kworker/u24:0/7 is trying to acquire lock: ffff88817d3a46e0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x66c/0x890 [btrfs] but task is already holding lock: ffff88817d3a46e0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x66c/0x890 [btrfs] other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(sb_internal#2); lock(sb_internal#2); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by kworker/u24:0/7: #0: ffff88817b495948 ((wq_completion)btrfs-endio-write){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x557/0xb80 jwrdegoede#1: ffff888189ea7db8 ((work_completion)(&work->normal_work)){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x557/0xb80 jwrdegoede#2: ffff88817d3a46e0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}, at: start_transaction+0x66c/0x890 [btrfs] jwrdegoede#3: ffff888174ca4da8 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}, at: btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x83/0xd0 [btrfs] stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 7 Comm: kworker/u24:0 Not tainted 5.6.0-rc7-custom+ linux-sunxi#48 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015 Workqueue: btrfs-endio-write btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] Call Trace: dump_stack+0xc2/0x11a __lock_acquire.cold+0xce/0x214 lock_acquire+0xe6/0x210 __sb_start_write+0x14e/0x290 start_transaction+0x66c/0x890 [btrfs] btrfs_join_transaction+0x1d/0x20 [btrfs] find_free_extent+0x1504/0x1a50 [btrfs] btrfs_reserve_extent+0xd5/0x1f0 [btrfs] btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x1ac/0x570 [btrfs] btrfs_copy_root+0x213/0x580 [btrfs] create_reloc_root+0x3bd/0x470 [btrfs] btrfs_init_reloc_root+0x2d2/0x310 [btrfs] record_root_in_trans+0x191/0x1d0 [btrfs] btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x90/0xd0 [btrfs] start_transaction+0x16e/0x890 [btrfs] btrfs_join_transaction+0x1d/0x20 [btrfs] btrfs_finish_ordered_io+0x55d/0xcd0 [btrfs] finish_ordered_fn+0x15/0x20 [btrfs] btrfs_work_helper+0x116/0x9a0 [btrfs] process_one_work+0x632/0xb80 worker_thread+0x80/0x690 kthread+0x1a3/0x1f0 ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50 It's pretty hard to reproduce, only one hit so far. [CAUSE] This is because we're calling btrfs_join_transaction() without re-using the current running one: btrfs_finish_ordered_io() |- btrfs_join_transaction() <<< Call jwrdegoede#1 |- btrfs_record_root_in_trans() |- btrfs_reserve_extent() |- btrfs_join_transaction() <<< Call jwrdegoede#2 Normally such btrfs_join_transaction() call should re-use the existing one, without trying to re-start a transaction. But the problem is, in btrfs_join_transaction() call jwrdegoede#1, we call btrfs_record_root_in_trans() before initializing current::journal_info. And in btrfs_join_transaction() call jwrdegoede#2, we're relying on current::journal_info to avoid such deadlock. [FIX] Call btrfs_record_root_in_trans() after we have initialized current::journal_info. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4+ Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
- Loading branch information