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:   Thu, 19 Aug 2021 19:34:03 +0200
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To:     Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
Cc:     dsterba@suse.cz, 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 v2] btrfs: fix rw device counting in
 __btrfs_free_extra_devids
Message-ID: <20210819173403.GI5047@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: <20210727071303.113876-1-desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
 <20210812103851.GC5047@twin.jikos.cz>
 <3c48eec9-590c-4974-4026-f74cafa5ac48@gmail.com>
 <20210812155032.GL5047@twin.jikos.cz>
 <1e0aafb2-9e55-5f64-d347-1765de0560c5@gmail.com>
 <20210813085137.GQ5047@twin.jikos.cz>
 <a5690ae1-28ba-a933-6473-e9c1e5480f0c@gmail.com>
 <20210813103032.GR5047@twin.jikos.cz>
 <89172356-335f-1ca3-d3a2-78fac7ef93fb@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <89172356-335f-1ca3-d3a2-78fac7ef93fb@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 01:11:58AM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
> >>> The option #2 does not sound safe because the TGT bit is checked in
> >>> several places where device list is queried for various reasons, even
> >>> without a mounted filesystem.
> >>>
> >>> Removing the assertion makes more sense but I'm still not convinced that
> >>> the this is expected/allowed state of a closed device.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Would it be better if we cleared the REPLACE_TGT bit only when closing
> >> the device where device->devid == BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_DEVID?
> >>
> >> The first conditional in btrfs_close_one_device assumes that we can come
> >> across such a device. If we come across it, we should properly reset it.
> >>
> >> If other devices has this bit set, the ASSERT will still catch it and
> >> let us know something is wrong.
> > 
> > That sounds great.
> > 
> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> >> index 70f94b75f25a..a5afebb78ecf 100644
> >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> >> @@ -1130,6 +1130,9 @@ static void btrfs_close_one_device(struct btrfs_device *device)
> >>                   fs_devices->rw_devices--;
> >>           }
> >>    
> >> +       if (device->devid == BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_DEVID)
> >> +               clear_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_REPLACE_TGT, &device->dev_state);
> >> +
> >>           if (test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_MISSING, &device->dev_state))
> >>                   fs_devices->missing_devices--;
> > 
> > I'll do a few test rounds, thanks.
> 
> Just following up. Did that resolve the issue or is further 
> investigation needed?

The fix seems to work, I haven't seen the assertion fail anymore,
incidentally the crash also stopped to show up on an unpatched branch.