2018-08-07 22:11:43

by Dave Jiang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] xfs: Close race between direct IO and xfs_break_layouts()

This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs.

If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned
by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in
xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function
xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that
xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop
looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode.

Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us
a page which it found with an elevated refcount.

Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <[email protected]>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
index a3e7767a5715..666c93fe5284 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
@@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter(

static void
xfs_wait_dax_page(
- struct inode *inode,
- bool *did_unlock)
+ struct inode *inode)
{
struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);

- *did_unlock = true;
xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL);
schedule();
xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL);
@@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts(
if (!page)
return 0;

+ *did_unlock = true;
return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount,
atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
- 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock));
+ 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode));
}

int


2018-08-08 08:53:39

by Jan Kara

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] xfs: Close race between direct IO and xfs_break_layouts()

On Tue 07-08-18 15:11:43, Dave Jiang wrote:
> This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs.
>
> If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned
> by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in
> xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function
> xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that
> xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop
> looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode.
>
> Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us
> a page which it found with an elevated refcount.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <[email protected]>

The patch looks good to me. You can add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]>

Just one minor nit below:

> @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts(
> if (!page)
> return 0;
>
> + *did_unlock = true;

I think it would be more understandable to name the argument of
xfs_break_dax_layouts() as 'retry' instead of 'did_unlock' as it's not
about unlocking anymore.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack-IBi9RG/[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR

2018-08-08 15:47:39

by Dave Jiang

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PATCH] xfs: Close race between direct IO and xfs_break_layouts()



On 08/08/2018 01:53 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 07-08-18 15:11:43, Dave Jiang wrote:
>> This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs.
>>
>> If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned
>> by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in
>> xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function
>> xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that
>> xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop
>> looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode.
>>
>> Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us
>> a page which it found with an elevated refcount.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <[email protected]>
>
> The patch looks good to me. You can add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
>
> Just one minor nit below:
>
>> @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts(
>> if (!page)
>> return 0;
>>
>> + *did_unlock = true;
>
> I think it would be more understandable to name the argument of
> xfs_break_dax_layouts() as 'retry' instead of 'did_unlock' as it's not
> about unlocking anymore.

Thanks for the review Jan! I will change. I was trying to decide between
less code change vs more clear definition. :)

>
> Honza
>