Received: by 2002:a05:6358:11c7:b0:104:8066:f915 with SMTP id i7csp346918rwl; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:52:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350bwOyaTRnlbmwxu3/WUH2SjQFszkVbD/J1Q9P3J8L+/t6J3M5EzNC7Y6eBSnXpLhwlLCv2T X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:fb50:b0:1a5:5927:2232 with SMTP id lf16-20020a170902fb5000b001a559272232mr3832477plb.53.1681267952509; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:52:32 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1681267952; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=eg/djx4yV1SQaBZrYYiUHKjuclHYSxCM+8gIDkF10XLpLyVXkK/0S0ycKQVRNsL1x8 wAdcktYpD7q/XOr71+j75lAmJEOMTt1EylrqNU1SR2LbAc9mxi7ekWoKiT1soNI96Pfp cNLtGQC63ndLP/PsDXCRrBJosJNGIRS7UE8Mi5Emvaw6q7vBRXeQ8K6u0U6ty3JK6Nsr LkQHcLCch4aEbyk2yaiqUiKUn8+2TEl5pTNdzfpjbQHFoMK4VotnmbHqy4phBNLmF7f/ FiU4kxJxd5KUqWgsZySdgXCigpK5rRML1sKe2BXUZXD16Gep01pEJcv4dV0mpLzBzEJc op0Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=AL82NkMvJ0/esfbC5Zw01E61VYze1D7aWbdwN5K+vC4=; b=fqeRXL+7wecse1xdA3W8SGtnK81aN5YZ5dYSYnQcxHvfqYwWc5+BW6bBr0JJffLndJ UxW1FAW/Lqd9jtCGsunOaukrQEAHm35ymcgcz20/YTOyjG4Pie1TIS0S6ExAVstD3vaL ft0u/CG2vjRmNtllh6ChzONlcSB77mgiWBgamNsiLh1rZJLcqQ3oWjn++j0NDn8CfIvO wM9a2qzVlanwPdmJkaWB0I5EPzJPrelLT6qSBuF2C/eJTu7qTiUqkpVeBymLafLGF/1s rLoj+6migvh8ctOqbJMhWvQoq+NmBv5RphFR3ZTsVgwHxeYA39g2TxqTsn/H7Q+5lD84 EqOQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=pAfru8hH; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h6-20020a170902f54600b001a24521e826si16087933plf.61.2023.04.11.19.52.19; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=pAfru8hH; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229553AbjDLCtL (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:49:11 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47538 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229450AbjDLCtK (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:49:10 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F7C644B9; Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E669B60F09; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DB1CC433D2; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 02:49:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1681267748; bh=6l6tJnxICA2ULe0XUVOrqNYppyqjamZONneAk26XYdw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=pAfru8hHTUV2Ervx+gdTXaaK+iMaAHmnfaWx9ZoI9cG6dwvsPMSVbdWL3sU7/w8Hi Ckfk+/HIAlWQhEeUrjWcgnux1uGgnSKFx33Kb40Ebg1O42e0HPaNxixGWpD8Qnbain 0nt4UXLwa9LGe33mWx3Sf2wBWpaIgK6F1ZqzigXM3LPSvW+kQVVhjXHBGw/irgm+CA Hjg+KnRGDL9Yb5QgONaqFBkReXcaKB6HeHHBcp9VWcWxiRf77r5S1CPbRJN6ayOQUh U2KhaQqxpJ2DfhtwUk8TKzIn2J0qKZ1eryk+2Ry0bIlA4+ImpbDBlhrEm4yBvIffXw 6mSVTUr0v31ZA== Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 19:49:07 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Ye Bin Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yebin10@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfs: fix BUG_ON in xfs_getbmap() Message-ID: <20230412024907.GP360889@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <20230329025258.1074860-1-yebin@huaweicloud.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230329025258.1074860-1-yebin@huaweicloud.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:52:58AM +0800, Ye Bin wrote: > From: Ye Bin > > There's issue as follows: > XFS: Assertion failed: (bmv->bmv_iflags & BMV_IF_DELALLOC) != 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c, line: 329 > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > kernel BUG at fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:102! > invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN > CPU: 1 PID: 14612 Comm: xfs_io Not tainted 6.3.0-rc2-next-20230315-00006-g2729d23ddb3b-dirty #422 > RIP: 0010:assfail+0x96/0xa0 > RSP: 0018:ffffc9000fa178c0 EFLAGS: 00010246 > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: ffff888179a18000 > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff888179a18000 RDI: 0000000000000002 > RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff8321aab6 R09: 0000000000000000 > R10: 0000000000000001 R11: ffffed1105f85139 R12: ffffffff8aacc4c0 > R13: 0000000000000149 R14: ffff888269f58000 R15: 000000000000000c > FS: 00007f42f27a4740(0000) GS:ffff88882fc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > CR2: 0000000000b92388 CR3: 000000024f006000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 > DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 > Call Trace: > > xfs_getbmap+0x1a5b/0x1e40 > xfs_ioc_getbmap+0x1fd/0x5b0 > xfs_file_ioctl+0x2cb/0x1d50 > __x64_sys_ioctl+0x197/0x210 > do_syscall_64+0x39/0xb0 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd > > Above issue may happen as follows: > ThreadA ThreadB > do_shared_fault > __do_fault > xfs_filemap_fault > __xfs_filemap_fault > filemap_fault > xfs_ioc_getbmap -> Without BMV_IF_DELALLOC flag > xfs_getbmap > xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED); > filemap_write_and_wait > do_page_mkwrite > xfs_filemap_page_mkwrite > __xfs_filemap_fault > xfs_ilock(XFS_I(inode), XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED); > iomap_page_mkwrite > ... > xfs_buffered_write_iomap_begin > xfs_bmapi_reserve_delalloc -> Allocate delay extent > xfs_ilock_data_map_shared(ip) > xfs_getbmap_report_one > ASSERT((bmv->bmv_iflags & BMV_IF_DELALLOC) != 0) > -> trigger BUG_ON > > As xfs_filemap_page_mkwrite() only hold XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED lock, there's > small window mkwrite can produce delay extent after file write in xfs_getbmap(). > To solve above issue, just skip delalloc extents. > > Signed-off-by: Ye Bin > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c | 14 ++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > index a09dd2606479..f032d3a4b727 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c > @@ -314,15 +314,13 @@ xfs_getbmap_report_one( > if (isnullstartblock(got->br_startblock) || > got->br_startblock == DELAYSTARTBLOCK) { > /* > - * Delalloc extents that start beyond EOF can occur due to > - * speculative EOF allocation when the delalloc extent is larger > - * than the largest freespace extent at conversion time. These > - * extents cannot be converted by data writeback, so can exist > - * here even if we are not supposed to be finding delalloc > - * extents. > + * Take the flush completion as being a point-in-time snapshot > + * where there are no delalloc extents, and if any new ones > + * have been created racily, just skip them as being 'after' > + * the flush and so don't get reported. > */ > - if (got->br_startoff < XFS_B_TO_FSB(ip->i_mount, XFS_ISIZE(ip))) > - ASSERT((bmv->bmv_iflags & BMV_IF_DELALLOC) != 0); > + if (!(bmv->bmv_iflags & BMV_IF_DELALLOC)) > + return 0; I think I'm ok with this... Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong --D > > p->bmv_oflags |= BMV_OF_DELALLOC; > p->bmv_block = -2; > -- > 2.31.1 >