On 16/03/2021 12:50, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 7:31 PM David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 02:31:06PM +0000, fdman...@kernel.org wrote:
>>> From: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com>
>>>
>>> When freeing a tree block we may end up adding its extent back to the
>>> free space cache/tree, as long as there are no more references for it,
>>> it was created in the current transaction and writeback for it never
>>> happened. This is generally fine, however when we have tree mod log
>>> operations it can result in inconsistent versions of a btree after
>>> unwinding extent buffers with the recorded tree mod log operations.
>>>
>>> This is because:
>>>
>>> * We only log operations for nodes (adding and removing key/pointers),
>>>   for leaves we don't do anything;
>>>
>>> * This means that we can log a MOD_LOG_KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING operation
>>>   for a node that points to a leaf that was deleted;
>>>
>>> * Before we apply the logged operation to unwind a node, we can have
>>>   that leaf's extent allocated again, either as a node or as a leaf, and
>>>   possibly for another btree. This is possible if the leaf was created in
>>>   the current transaction and writeback for it never started, in which
>>>   case btrfs_free_tree_block() returns its extent back to the free space
>>>   cache/tree;
>>>
>>> * Then, before applying the tree mod log operation, some task allocates
>>>   the metadata extent just freed before, and uses it either as a leaf or
>>>   as a node for some btree (can be the same or another one, it does not
>>>   matter);
>>>
>>> * After applying the MOD_LOG_KEY_REMOVE_WHILE_FREEING operation we now
>>>   get the target node with an item pointing to the metadata extent that
>>>   now has content different from what it had before the leaf was deleted.
>>>   It might now belong to a different btree and be a node and not a leaf
>>>   anymore.
>>>
>>>   As a consequence, the results of searches after the unwinding can be
>>>   unpredictable and produce unexpected results.
>>>
>>> So make sure we pin extent buffers corresponding to leaves when there
>>> are tree mod log users.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> index 5e228d6ad63f..2482b26b1971 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> @@ -3310,6 +3310,7 @@ void btrfs_free_tree_block(struct btrfs_trans_handle 
>>> *trans,
>>>
>>>       if (last_ref && btrfs_header_generation(buf) == trans->transid) {
>>>               struct btrfs_block_group *cache;
>>> +             bool must_pin = false;
>>>
>>>               if (root->root_key.objectid != BTRFS_TREE_LOG_OBJECTID) {
>>>                       ret = check_ref_cleanup(trans, buf->start);
>>> @@ -3327,7 +3328,27 @@ void btrfs_free_tree_block(struct btrfs_trans_handle 
>>> *trans,
>>>                       goto out;
>>>               }
>>>
>>> -             if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
>>> +             /*
>>> +              * If this is a leaf and there are tree mod log users, we may
>>> +              * have recorded mod log operations that point to this leaf.
>>> +              * So we must make sure no one reuses this leaf's extent 
>>> before
>>> +              * mod log operations are applied to a node, otherwise after
>>> +              * rewinding a node using the mod log operations we get an
>>> +              * inconsistent btree, as the leaf's extent may now be used as
>>> +              * a node or leaf for another different btree.
>>> +              * We are safe from races here because at this point no other
>>> +              * node or root points to this extent buffer, so if after this
>>> +              * check a new tree mod log user joins, it will not be able to
>>> +              * find a node pointing to this leaf and record operations 
>>> that
>>> +              * point to this leaf.
>>> +              */
>>> +             if (btrfs_header_level(buf) == 0) {
>>> +                     read_lock(&fs_info->tree_mod_log_lock);
>>> +                     must_pin = !list_empty(&fs_info->tree_mod_seq_list);
>>> +                     read_unlock(&fs_info->tree_mod_log_lock);
>>> +             }
>>> +
>>> +             if (must_pin || btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
>>>                       btrfs_redirty_list_add(trans->transaction, buf);
>>>                       pin_down_extent(trans, cache, buf->start, buf->len, 
>>> 1);
>>>                       btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
>>
>> This has been added in d3575156f662 ("btrfs: zoned: redirty released
>> extent buffers") 5.12-rc1, so it is a regression but otherwise it sounds
>> like it's not related only to zoned mode. I'm not sure if this is
>> relevant for older stable trees because of missing
>> btrfs_redirty_list_add, possibly with some tweaks. Please let me know,
>> thanks.
> 
> It's not related to zoned filesystems at all.
> I just happened to reuse that if branch for the zoned case because it
> does the same thing I needed to do, and the call to
> btrfs_redirty_list_add() does nothing for the non-zoned case, so it's
> safe.
> 
> I.e., it's the same as adding the following instead:
> 
> if (must_pin) {
>   pin_down_extent(trans, cache, buf->start, buf->len, 1);
>   btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
>   goto out;
> }
> 
> I opted for the shorter version by ORing the two cases.

FYI the redirtying is one thing we promised Josef to get rid in the zoned ASAP.
We just can't get it to work properly yet.

Reply via email to