Message-ID: <55380476.3050509@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:28:38 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: call xfs_idestroy_fork() in xfs_ilock() critical
 section
References: <1429724021-7675-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com> <20150422191137.GF6688@bfoster.bfoster>
In-Reply-To: <20150422191137.GF6688@bfoster.bfoster>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1901
Lines: 43

On 04/22/2015 03:11 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 01:33:41PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The commit f7be2d7f594cbc ("xfs: push down inactive transaction
>> mgmt for truncate") refactored the xfs_inactive() function
>> in fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c.  However, it also moved the call to
>> xfs_idestroy_fork() from inside the xfs_ilock() critical section to
>> outside. That was causing memory corruption and strange failures like
>> deferencing NULL pointers in some circumstances.
>>
>> This patch moves the xfs_idestroy_fork() call back into an xfs_ilock()
>> critical section to avoid memory corruption problem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long<Waiman.Long@hp.com>
>> ---
> Interesting... so from your previous mail we have an inactive/reclaim
> racing with an xfs_iflush_fork() of the attr fork, or something of that
> nature? Is there a specific reproducer or is it some kind of stress
> test?
>
> Good catch in any case, it looks like a deviation from the previous
> code...

I am not sure what kind of races are going on. I was running the AIM7 
workload for performance comparison purpose. I hit the error when 
running the disk workload with xfs filesystem. The smaller the ramdisk 
that I used, the easier it was to reproduce the error. I think I haven't 
run it for quite a while so I did not notice any problem or I might have 
just ignored it in some previous runs.

I did check some other call sites of xfs_idestroy_fork() and they are 
under xfs_ilock(). So I suppose it is not safe to call it outside of the 
critical section. This patch did indeed fix the problem that I saw when 
running the disk workload.

Cheers,
Longman


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/