Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Naresh Madhusudana <naresh.madhusudana@arm.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@microsoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 138/496] fs: dcache: Avoid livelock between d_alloc_parallel and __d_add
Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 11:58:43 +0200
Message-Id: <20180528100325.748441454@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180528100319.498712256@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20180528100319.498712256@linuxfoundation.org>
User-Agent: quilt/0.65
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

[ Upstream commit 015555fd4d2930bc0c86952c46ad88b3392f66e4 ]

If d_alloc_parallel runs concurrently with __d_add, it is possible for
d_alloc_parallel to continuously retry whilst i_dir_seq has been
incremented to an odd value by __d_add:

CPU0:
__d_add
	n = start_dir_add(dir);
		cmpxchg(&dir->i_dir_seq, n, n + 1) == n

CPU1:
d_alloc_parallel
retry:
	seq = smp_load_acquire(&parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq) & ~1;
	hlist_bl_lock(b);
		bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)b); // Always succeeds

CPU0:
	__d_lookup_done(dentry)
		hlist_bl_lock
			bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)b); // Never succeeds

CPU1:
	if (unlikely(parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq != seq)) {
		hlist_bl_unlock(b);
		goto retry;
	}

Since the simple bit_spin_lock used to implement hlist_bl_lock does not
provide any fairness guarantees, then CPU1 can starve CPU0 of the lock
and prevent it from reaching end_dir_add(dir), therefore CPU1 cannot
exit its retry loop because the sequence number always has the bottom
bit set.

This patch resolves the livelock by not taking hlist_bl_lock in
d_alloc_parallel if the sequence counter is odd, since any subsequent
masked comparison with i_dir_seq will fail anyway.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Reported-by: Naresh Madhusudana <naresh.madhusudana@arm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 fs/dcache.c |    8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -2482,7 +2482,7 @@ struct dentry *d_alloc_parallel(struct d
 
 retry:
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	seq = smp_load_acquire(&parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq) & ~1;
+	seq = smp_load_acquire(&parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq);
 	r_seq = read_seqbegin(&rename_lock);
 	dentry = __d_lookup_rcu(parent, name, &d_seq);
 	if (unlikely(dentry)) {
@@ -2503,6 +2503,12 @@ retry:
 		rcu_read_unlock();
 		goto retry;
 	}
+
+	if (unlikely(seq & 1)) {
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		goto retry;
+	}
+
 	hlist_bl_lock(b);
 	if (unlikely(parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq != seq)) {
 		hlist_bl_unlock(b);