From 535ee2fbf79ab52d26bce3d2e127c9007503581e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jan Kara Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 04:21:59 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] buffer_head: fix private_list handling There are two possible races in handling of private_list in buffer cache. 1) When fsync_buffers_list() processes a private_list, it clears b_assoc_mapping and moves buffer to its private list. Now drop_buffers() comes, sees a buffer is on list so it calls __remove_assoc_queue() which complains about b_assoc_mapping being cleared (as it cannot propagate possible IO error). This race has been actually observed in the wild. 2) When fsync_buffers_list() processes a private_list, mark_buffer_dirty_inode() can be called on bh which is already on the private list of fsync_buffers_list(). As buffer is on some list (note that the check is performed without private_lock), it is not readded to the mapping's private_list and after fsync_buffers_list() finishes, we have a dirty buffer which should be on private_list but it isn't. This race has not been reported, probably because most (but not all) callers of mark_buffer_dirty_inode() hold i_mutex and thus are serialized with fsync(). Fix these issues by not clearing b_assoc_map when fsync_buffers_list() moves buffer to a dedicated list and by reinserting buffer in private_list when it is found dirty after we have submitted buffer for IO. We also change the tests whether a buffer is on a private list from !list_empty(&bh->b_assoc_buffers) to bh->b_assoc_map so that they are single word reads and hence lockless checks are safe. Signed-off-by: Jan Kara Cc: Nick Piggin Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- fs/buffer.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c index 6f0bddddcf4a..3ebccf4aa7e3 100644 --- a/fs/buffer.c +++ b/fs/buffer.c @@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ void mark_buffer_dirty_inode(struct buffer_head *bh, struct inode *inode) } else { BUG_ON(mapping->assoc_mapping != buffer_mapping); } - if (list_empty(&bh->b_assoc_buffers)) { + if (!bh->b_assoc_map) { spin_lock(&buffer_mapping->private_lock); list_move_tail(&bh->b_assoc_buffers, &mapping->private_list); @@ -794,6 +794,7 @@ static int fsync_buffers_list(spinlock_t *lock, struct list_head *list) { struct buffer_head *bh; struct list_head tmp; + struct address_space *mapping; int err = 0, err2; INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tmp); @@ -801,9 +802,14 @@ static int fsync_buffers_list(spinlock_t *lock, struct list_head *list) spin_lock(lock); while (!list_empty(list)) { bh = BH_ENTRY(list->next); + mapping = bh->b_assoc_map; __remove_assoc_queue(bh); + /* Avoid race with mark_buffer_dirty_inode() which does + * a lockless check and we rely on seeing the dirty bit */ + smp_mb(); if (buffer_dirty(bh) || buffer_locked(bh)) { list_add(&bh->b_assoc_buffers, &tmp); + bh->b_assoc_map = mapping; if (buffer_dirty(bh)) { get_bh(bh); spin_unlock(lock); @@ -822,8 +828,17 @@ static int fsync_buffers_list(spinlock_t *lock, struct list_head *list) while (!list_empty(&tmp)) { bh = BH_ENTRY(tmp.prev); - list_del_init(&bh->b_assoc_buffers); get_bh(bh); + mapping = bh->b_assoc_map; + __remove_assoc_queue(bh); + /* Avoid race with mark_buffer_dirty_inode() which does + * a lockless check and we rely on seeing the dirty bit */ + smp_mb(); + if (buffer_dirty(bh)) { + list_add(&bh->b_assoc_buffers, + &bh->b_assoc_map->private_list); + bh->b_assoc_map = mapping; + } spin_unlock(lock); wait_on_buffer(bh); if (!buffer_uptodate(bh)) @@ -1195,7 +1210,7 @@ void __brelse(struct buffer_head * buf) void __bforget(struct buffer_head *bh) { clear_buffer_dirty(bh); - if (!list_empty(&bh->b_assoc_buffers)) { + if (bh->b_assoc_map) { struct address_space *buffer_mapping = bh->b_page->mapping; spin_lock(&buffer_mapping->private_lock); @@ -3022,7 +3037,7 @@ drop_buffers(struct page *page, struct buffer_head **buffers_to_free) do { struct buffer_head *next = bh->b_this_page; - if (!list_empty(&bh->b_assoc_buffers)) + if (bh->b_assoc_map) __remove_assoc_queue(bh); bh = next; } while (bh != head); -- 2.30.2