Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:28:16 -0800 (PST)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        syzbot <syzbot+3622cea378100f45d59f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>, Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        William Kucharski <william.kucharski@oracle.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:LINE!
In-Reply-To: <20201124121912.GZ4327@casper.infradead.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2011240810470.1029@eggly.anvils>
References: <000000000000d3a33205add2f7b2@google.com> <20200828100755.GG7072@quack2.suse.cz> <20200831100340.GA26519@quack2.suse.cz> <CAHk-=wivRS_1uy326sLqKuwerbL0APyKYKwa+vWVGsQg8sxhLw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LSU.2.11.2011231928140.4305@eggly.anvils>
 <20201124121912.GZ4327@casper.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 08:07:24PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > 
> > Then on crashing a second time, realized there's a stronger reason against
> > that approach.  If my testing just occasionally crashes on that check,
> > when the page is reused for part of a compound page, wouldn't it be much
> > more common for the page to get reused as an order-0 page before reaching
> > wake_up_page()?  And on rare occasions, might that reused page already be
> > marked PageWriteback by its new user, and already be waited upon?  What
> > would that look like?
> > 
> > It would look like BUG_ON(PageWriteback) after wait_on_page_writeback()
> > in write_cache_pages() (though I have never seen that crash myself).
> 
> I don't think this is it.  write_cache_pages() holds a reference to the
> page -- indeed, it holds the page lock!  So this particular race cannot
> cause the page to get recycled.  I still have no good ideas what this
> is :-(

It is confusing. I tried to explain that in the final paragraph:

> > Was there a chance of missed wakeups before, since a page freed before
> > reaching wake_up_page() would have PageWaiters cleared?  I think not,
> > because each waiter does hold a reference on the page: this bug comes
> > not from real waiters, but from when PageWaiters is a false positive.

but got lost in between the original end_page_writeback() and the patched
version when writing that last part - false positive PageWaiters are not
relevant.  I'll try rewording that in the simpler version, following.

The BUG_ON(PageWriteback) would occur when the old use of the page, the
one we do TestClearPageWriteback on, had *no* waiters, so no additional
page reference beyond the page cache (and whoever racily frees it). The
reuse of the page definitely has a waiter holding a reference, as you
point out, and PageWriteback still set; but our belated wake_up_page()
has woken it to hit the BUG_ON.

Hugh