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, Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@microsoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 034/124] btrfs: add barriers to btrfs_sync_log before log_commit_wait wakeups
Date:   Sat,  4 Aug 2018 11:00:23 +0200
Message-Id: <20180804082703.712833610@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180804082702.434482435@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20180804082702.434482435@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

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

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

From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

[ Upstream commit 3d3a2e610ea5e7c6d4f9481ecce5d8e2d8317843 ]

Currently the code assumes that there's an implied barrier by the
sequence of code preceding the wakeup, namely the mutex unlock.

As Nikolay pointed out:

I think this is wrong (not your code) but the original assumption that
the RELEASE semantics provided by mutex_unlock is sufficient.
According to memory-barriers.txt:

Section 'LOCK ACQUISITION FUNCTIONS' states:

 (2) RELEASE operation implication:

     Memory operations issued before the RELEASE will be completed before the
     RELEASE operation has completed.

     Memory operations issued after the RELEASE *may* be completed before the
     RELEASE operation has completed.

(I've bolded the may portion)

The example given there:

As an example, consider the following:

    *A = a;
    *B = b;
    ACQUIRE
    *C = c;
    *D = d;
    RELEASE
    *E = e;
    *F = f;

The following sequence of events is acceptable:

    ACQUIRE, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, RELEASE

So if we assume that *C is modifying the flag which the waitqueue is checking,
and *E is the actual wakeup, then those accesses can be re-ordered...

IMHO this code should be considered broken...
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---

To be on the safe side, add the barriers. The synchronization logic
around log using the mutexes and several other threads does not make it
easy to reason for/against the barrier.

CC: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/6ee068d8-1a69-3728-00d1-d86293d43c9f@suse.com
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
 fs/btrfs/tree-log.c |   10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -2961,8 +2961,11 @@ out_wake_log_root:
 	mutex_unlock(&log_root_tree->log_mutex);
 
 	/*
-	 * The barrier before waitqueue_active is implied by mutex_unlock
+	 * The barrier before waitqueue_active is needed so all the updates
+	 * above are seen by the woken threads. It might not be necessary, but
+	 * proving that seems to be hard.
 	 */
+	smp_mb();
 	if (waitqueue_active(&log_root_tree->log_commit_wait[index2]))
 		wake_up(&log_root_tree->log_commit_wait[index2]);
 out:
@@ -2973,8 +2976,11 @@ out:
 	mutex_unlock(&root->log_mutex);
 
 	/*
-	 * The barrier before waitqueue_active is implied by mutex_unlock
+	 * The barrier before waitqueue_active is needed so all the updates
+	 * above are seen by the woken threads. It might not be necessary, but
+	 * proving that seems to be hard.
 	 */
+	smp_mb();
 	if (waitqueue_active(&root->log_commit_wait[index1]))
 		wake_up(&root->log_commit_wait[index1]);
 	return ret;