Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 19:59:38 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
Cc:     clm@fb.com, josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com,
        anand.jain@oracle.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        syzbot+a70e2ad0879f160b9217@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix rw device counting in
 __btrfs_free_extra_devids
Message-ID: <20210721175938.GP19710@twin.jikos.cz>
Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz
Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz,
        Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>, clm@fb.com,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com, anand.jain@oracle.com,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        skhan@linuxfoundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        syzbot+a70e2ad0879f160b9217@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
References: <20210715103403.176695-1-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210715103403.176695-1-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 06:34:03PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> Syzbot reports a warning in close_fs_devices that happens because
> fs_devices->rw_devices is not 0 after calling btrfs_close_one_device
> on each device.
> 
> This happens when a writeable device is removed in
> __btrfs_free_extra_devids, but the rw device count is not decremented
> accordingly. So when close_fs_devices is called, the removed device is
> still counted and we get an off by 1 error.
> 
> Here is one call trace that was observed:
>   btrfs_mount_root():
>     btrfs_scan_one_device():
>       device_list_add();   <---------------- device added
>     btrfs_open_devices():
>       open_fs_devices():
>         btrfs_open_one_device();   <-------- rw device count ++
>     btrfs_fill_super():
>       open_ctree():
>         btrfs_free_extra_devids():
> 	  __btrfs_free_extra_devids();  <--- device removed
> 	  fail_tree_roots:
> 	    btrfs_close_devices():
> 	      close_fs_devices();   <------- rw device count off by 1
> 
> Fixes: cf89af146b7e ("btrfs: dev-replace: fail mount if we don't have replace item with target device")

What this patch did in the last hunk was the rw_devices decrement, but
conditional:

@@ -1080,9 +1071,6 @@ static void __btrfs_free_extra_devids(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices,
                if (test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_WRITEABLE, &device->dev_state)) {
                        list_del_init(&device->dev_alloc_list);
                        clear_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_WRITEABLE, &device->dev_state);
-                       if (!test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_REPLACE_TGT,
-                                     &device->dev_state))
-                               fs_devices->rw_devices--;
                }
                list_del_init(&device->dev_list);
                fs_devices->num_devices--;
---


> @@ -1078,6 +1078,7 @@ static void __btrfs_free_extra_devids(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices,
>  		if (test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_WRITEABLE, &device->dev_state)) {
>  			list_del_init(&device->dev_alloc_list);
>  			clear_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_WRITEABLE, &device->dev_state);
> +			fs_devices->rw_devices--;
>  		}
>  		list_del_init(&device->dev_list);
>  		fs_devices->num_devices--;

So should it be reinstated in the original form? The rest of
cf89af146b7e handles unexpected device replace item during mount.

Adding the decrement is correct, but right now I'm not sure about the
corner case when teh devcie has the BTRFS_DEV_STATE_REPLACE_TGT bit set.
The state machine of the device bits and counters is not trivial so
fixing it one way or the other could lead to further syzbot reports if
we don't understand the issue.