From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: djwong@us.ibm.com
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mingming Cao <mcao@us.ibm.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] block integrity: Fix write after checksum calculation problem
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:42:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110411124229.47bc28f6@corrin.poochiereds.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110408203135.GH1110@tux1.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 13:31:35 -0700
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:57:00PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 06-04-11 16:29:38, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 05:43:05PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Mon 21-03-11 10:24:41, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > > Excerpts from Jan Kara's message of 2011-03-21 10:04:51 -0400:
> > > > > > On Fri 18-03-11 17:07:55, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Ok, here's what I have so far. I took everyone's suggestions of where to add
> > > > > > > > > calls to wait_on_page_writeback, which seems to handle the multiple-write case
> > > > > > > > > adequately. Unfortunately, it is still possible to generate checksum errors by
> > > > > > > > > scribbling furiously on a mmap'd region, even after adding the writeback wait
> > > > > > > > > in the ext4 writepage function. Oddly, I couldn't break btrfs with mmap by
> > > > > > > > > removing its wait_for_page_writeback call, so I suspect there's a bit more
> > > > > > > > > going on in btrfs than I've been able to figure out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder, is it possible for this to happen:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Thread A mmaps a page and tries to write to it. ext4_page_mkwrite executes,
> > > > > > > but there's no ongoing writeback, so it returns without delay.
> > > > > > > 2. Thread A starts writing furiously to the page.
> > > > > > > 3. Thread B runs fsync() or something that results in the page being
> > > > > > > checksummed and scheduled for writeout.
> > > > > > > 4. Thread A continues to write furiously(!) on that same page before the
> > > > > > > controller finishes the DMA transfer.
> > > > > > > 5. Disk gets the page, which now doesn't match its checksum, and *boom*
> > > > > > What happens on writepage (see mm/page-writeback.c:write_cache_pages())
> > > > > > is:
> > > > > > lock_page(page)
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > clear_page_dirty_for_io() - removes PageDirty, marks page as read-only in
> > > > > > PTE
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > set_page_writeback() (happens e.g. in __block_write_full_page() called
> > > > > > from filesystem's writepage implementation).
> > > > > > unlock_page(page)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if you compute the checksum after set_page_writeback() is done in the
> > > > > > writepage() implementation (you cannot use __block_write_full_page() in
> > > > > > that case)
> > > > I should add that if you are computing the checksum in the block layer
> > > > once the bio is submitted, you obviously are computing it after the page is
> > > > marked as writeback. So that should be fine...
> > > >
> > > > > > and you call wait_on_page_writeback() in ext4_page_mkwrite()
> > > > > > under page lock, you should be safe. If you do all this and still see
> > > > > > errors, something is broken I'd say...
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at the ext4_page_mkwrite, it does this:
> > > > >
> > > > > lock the page
> > > > > check for holes
> > > > > unlock the page
> > > > > if (no_holes)
> > > > > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > write_begin/write_end
> > > > > return
> > > > >
> > > > > So, to have page_mkwrite work, you need to wait for writeback with the
> > > > > page locked in both the no holes case and after the
> > > > > write_begin/write_end. write_begin will dirty the page, so someone can
> > > > > wander in and start the IO while we are still in page_mkwrite.
> > > > Oh right, that's a good point.
> > > >
> > > > > This is untested and uncompiled, but it should
> > > > > do the trick.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan, did you get rid of all the buffer head based writeback for
> > > > > data=ordered in ext4? That's my only other idea, that someone is doing
> > > > > writeback directly without taking the page lock.
> > > > Yes, ext4 shouldn't do any buffer based writeback.
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > > > index 9f7f9e4..8a75e12 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > > > @@ -5880,6 +5880,7 @@ int ext4_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > > > if (page_has_buffers(page)) {
> > > > > if (!walk_page_buffers(NULL, page_buffers(page), 0, len, NULL,
> > > > > ext4_bh_unmapped)) {
> > > > > + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> > > > > unlock_page(page);
> > > > > goto out_unlock;
> > > > > }
> > > > > @@ -5901,6 +5902,16 @@ int ext4_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > > > if (ret < 0)
> > > > > goto out_unlock;
> > > > > ret = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * write_begin/end might have created a dirty page and someone
> > > > > + * could wander in and start the IO. Make sure that hasn't
> > > > > + * happened
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + lock_page(page);
> > > > > + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> > > > > + unlock_page(page);
> > > > > +
> > > > > out_unlock:
> > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > ret = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> > > > >
> > > > This looks good AFAICT.
> > >
> > > I gave this a spin a couple of weeks ago (and accidentally left the test
> > > machines running for a full week!) From what I can tell, with all the various
> > > wait_for_page_writeback stuff-ins, we've cut the frequency of writeback errors
> > > down to about 7-8 per day. Not bad, but not fixed.
> > Ugh, strange. Can you post the full patch you are currently using? I've
> > already lost track of all the proposed changes... Thanks.
>
> Yes, me too. Attached is the giant patch I've been working on.
>
> --D
>
> fs: Wait for page writeback when rewrite detected, and mark pages ro during writeback
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
> index a08bb8e..dd429fe 100644
> --- a/fs/buffer.c
> +++ b/fs/buffer.c
> @@ -2357,6 +2357,8 @@ block_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf,
> else
> end = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
>
> + WARN_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> ret = __block_write_begin(page, 0, end, get_block);
> if (!ret)
> ret = block_commit_write(page, 0, end);
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index 1a86282..57cd028 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -2666,6 +2666,8 @@ static int ext4_writepage(struct page *page,
> */
> goto redirty_page;
> }
> + WARN_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> if (commit_write)
> /* now mark the buffer_heads as dirty and uptodate */
> block_commit_write(page, 0, len);
> @@ -2778,7 +2780,8 @@ static int write_cache_pages_da(struct address_space *mapping,
> }
>
> lock_page(page);
> -
> + if (PageWriteback(page))
> + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> /*
> * If the page is no longer dirty, or its
> * mapping no longer corresponds to inode we
> @@ -5803,12 +5806,14 @@ int ext4_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> if (PageMappedToDisk(page))
> goto out_unlock;
>
> + lock_page(page);
> + /* this one seems to handle mmap */
> + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> if (page->index == size >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT)
> len = size & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK;
> else
> len = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
>
> - lock_page(page);
> /*
> * return if we have all the buffers mapped. This avoid
> * the need to call write_begin/write_end which does a
> @@ -5839,6 +5844,15 @@ int ext4_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> if (ret < 0)
> goto out_unlock;
> ret = 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * write_begin/end might have created a dirty page and someone
> + * could wander in and start the IO. Make sure that hasn't
> + * happened.
> + */
> + lock_page(page);
> + wait_on_page_writeback(page);
> + unlock_page(page);
nit:
The callers of page_mkwrite always lock the page afterward if you
return from page_mkwrite with it unlocked. If you plan to take page
lock anyway, it's probably slightly more efficient not to unlock it and
instead return VM_FAULT_LOCKED.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-11 17:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-22 2:00 Darrick J. Wong
2011-02-22 5:45 ` Boaz Harrosh
2011-02-22 11:42 ` Jan Kara
2011-02-22 13:02 ` Chris Mason
2011-02-22 19:13 ` Boaz Harrosh
2011-03-04 20:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-03-04 20:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-02-22 16:13 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-02-22 16:40 ` Martin K. Petersen
2011-02-22 19:45 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-02-22 22:53 ` Dave Chinner
2011-02-23 16:24 ` Martin K. Petersen
2011-02-23 23:47 ` Dave Chinner
2011-02-24 16:43 ` Jan Kara
2011-02-28 8:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-02-22 16:45 ` Martin K. Petersen
2011-02-23 20:24 ` Joel Becker
2011-02-23 20:35 ` Chris Mason
2011-02-23 21:42 ` Joel Becker
2011-02-24 16:47 ` Jan Kara
2011-02-24 17:37 ` Chris Mason
2011-02-24 18:27 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-02-28 12:54 ` Chris Mason
2011-03-04 21:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-03-04 22:22 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-03-07 19:11 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-03-07 21:12 ` Chris Mason
2011-03-08 4:56 ` Dave Chinner
2011-03-10 23:57 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-03-11 16:34 ` Chris Mason
2011-03-11 18:51 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-03-19 0:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-03-19 2:28 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-03-22 19:23 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-03-22 21:54 ` Jan Kara
2011-03-21 14:04 ` Jan Kara
2011-03-21 14:24 ` Chris Mason
2011-03-21 16:43 ` Jan Kara
2011-04-06 23:29 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-04-07 16:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-04-07 16:57 ` Jan Kara
2011-04-08 20:31 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-04-11 16:42 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2011-04-11 17:41 ` Chris Mason
2011-04-11 18:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-11 18:38 ` Chris Mason
2011-04-12 0:46 ` Mingming Cao
2011-04-12 0:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-14 0:48 ` Mingming Cao
2011-04-22 0:02 ` [RFC v2] block integrity: Stabilize(?) pages during writeback Darrick J. Wong
2011-04-22 12:50 ` Chris Mason
2011-04-22 20:34 ` Jan Kara
2011-04-26 0:37 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-04-26 11:33 ` Chris Mason
2011-05-03 1:59 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-05-04 1:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-04-26 11:37 ` Jan Kara
2011-05-04 17:37 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] data integrity: Stabilize pages during writeback for ext4 Darrick J. Wong
2011-05-04 18:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-04 19:21 ` Chris Mason
2011-05-04 20:00 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-05-04 23:57 ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-05-05 15:26 ` Jan Kara
2011-05-04 17:39 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] ext4: Clean up some wait_on_page_writeback calls Darrick J. Wong
2011-05-04 17:41 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] ext4: Wait for writeback to complete while making pages writable Darrick J. Wong
2011-05-04 17:42 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] mm: Wait for writeback when grabbing pages to begin a write Darrick J. Wong
2011-05-04 18:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110411124229.47bc28f6@corrin.poochiereds.net \
--to=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jlbec@evilplan.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=mcao@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome