lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] btrfs: transaction: Fix misplaced barrier in btrfs_record_root_in_trans
Just curious about the status of this patch. :) Let me know if you
need further information.

Thanks!

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:44 AM Baptiste Lepers
<baptiste.lepers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, they need to be between the reads to have an effect. See
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt §SMP
> BARRIER PAIRING ("When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions..."). You
> will see that the barriers are always between the ordered reads and
> not before.
>
> I think that Paul, the barrier guru, can confirm that the barrier was
> misplaced in the original code? :)
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:43 AM Baptiste Lepers
> <baptiste.lepers@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 10:27 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 11:25:59AM +1000, Baptiste Lepers wrote:
> >> > Per comment, record_root_in_trans orders the writes of the root->state
> >> > and root->last_trans:
> >> > set_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_IN_TRANS_SETUP, &root->state);
> >> > smp_wmb();
> >> > root->last_trans = trans->transid;
> >> >
> >> > But the barrier that enforces the order on the read side is misplaced:
> >> > smp_rmb(); <-- misplaced
> >> > if (root->last_trans == trans->transid &&
> >> > <-- missing barrier here -->
> >> > !test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_IN_TRANS_SETUP, &root->state))
> >> >
> >> > This patches fixes the ordering and wraps the racy accesses with
> >> > READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE calls to avoid load/store tearing.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: 7585717f304f5 ("Btrfs: fix relocation races")
> >> > Signed-off-by: Baptiste Lepers <baptiste.lepers@gmail.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 7 ++++---
> >> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >> > index 14b9fdc8aaa9..a609222e6704 100644
> >> > --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >> > @@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ static int record_root_in_trans(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >> > (unsigned long)root->root_key.objectid,
> >> > BTRFS_ROOT_TRANS_TAG);
> >> > spin_unlock(&fs_info->fs_roots_radix_lock);
> >> > - root->last_trans = trans->transid;
> >> > + WRITE_ONCE(root->last_trans, trans->transid);
> >> >
> >> > /* this is pretty tricky. We don't want to
> >> > * take the relocation lock in btrfs_record_root_in_trans
> >> > @@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ int btrfs_record_root_in_trans(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >> > struct btrfs_root *root)
> >> > {
> >> > struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = root->fs_info;
> >> > - int ret;
> >> > + int ret, last_trans;
> >> >
> >> > if (!test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_SHAREABLE, &root->state))
> >> > return 0;
> >> > @@ -498,8 +498,9 @@ int btrfs_record_root_in_trans(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >> > * see record_root_in_trans for comments about IN_TRANS_SETUP usage
> >> > * and barriers
> >> > */
> >> > + last_trans = READ_ONCE(root->last_trans);
> >> > smp_rmb();
> >> > - if (root->last_trans == trans->transid &&
> >> > + if (last_trans == trans->transid &&
> >> > !test_bit(BTRFS_ROOT_IN_TRANS_SETUP, &root->state))
> >>
> >> Aren't the smp_rmb barriers supposed to be used before the condition?
> >
> >
> > No, they need to be between the reads to have an effect. See https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt §SMP BARRIER PAIRING ("When dealing with CPU-CPU interactions..."). You will see that the barriers are always between the ordered reads and not before.
> >
> > I think that Paul, the barrier guru, can confirm that the barrier was misplaced in the original code? :)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-16 05:47    [W:0.062 / U:2.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site