======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.8.0-0.rc3.1.fc33.x86_64+debug #1 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
systemd-journal/509 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff970831f84db0 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs]
but task is already holding lock:
ffff97083144d598 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x59/0x560 [btrfs]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #6 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}-{0:0}:
__sb_start_write+0x13e/0x220
btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x59/0x560 [btrfs]
do_page_mkwrite+0x4f/0x130
do_wp_page+0x3b0/0x4f0
handle_mm_fault+0xf47/0x1850
do_user_addr_fault+0x1fc/0x4b0
exc_page_fault+0x88/0x300
asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30
-> #5 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}:
__might_fault+0x60/0x80
_copy_from_user+0x20/0xb0
get_sg_io_hdr+0x9a/0xb0
scsi_cmd_ioctl+0x1ea/0x2f0
cdrom_ioctl+0x3c/0x12b4
sr_block_ioctl+0xa4/0xd0
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
ksys_ioctl+0x82/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #4 (&cd->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820
sr_block_open+0xa2/0x180
__blkdev_get+0xdd/0x550
blkdev_get+0x38/0x150
do_dentry_open+0x16b/0x3e0
path_openat+0x3c9/0xa00
do_filp_open+0x75/0x100
do_sys_openat2+0x8a/0x140
__x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #3 (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820
__blkdev_get+0x6a/0x550
blkdev_get+0x85/0x150
blkdev_get_by_path+0x2c/0x70
btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb+0x1b/0xb0 [btrfs]
open_fs_devices+0x88/0x240 [btrfs]
btrfs_open_devices+0x92/0xa0 [btrfs]
btrfs_mount_root+0x250/0x490 [btrfs]
legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0xb0
btrfs_mount+0x119/0x380 [btrfs]
legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
do_mount+0x8c6/0xca0
__x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0
do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #2 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820
btrfs_run_dev_stats+0x36/0x420 [btrfs]
commit_cowonly_roots+0x91/0x2d0 [btrfs]
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x4e6/0x9f0 [btrfs]
btrfs_sync_file+0x38a/0x480 [btrfs]
__x64_sys_fdatasync+0x47/0x80
do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #1 (&fs_info->tree_log_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x48e/0x9f0 [btrfs]
btrfs_sync_file+0x38a/0x480 [btrfs]
__x64_sys_fdatasync+0x47/0x80
do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #0 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1241/0x20c0
lock_acquire+0xb0/0x400
__mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820
btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs]
start_transaction+0xd2/0x500 [btrfs]
btrfs_dirty_inode+0x44/0xd0 [btrfs]
file_update_time+0xc6/0x120
btrfs_page_mkwrite+0xda/0x560 [btrfs]
do_page_mkwrite+0x4f/0x130
do_wp_page+0x3b0/0x4f0
handle_mm_fault+0xf47/0x1850
do_user_addr_fault+0x1fc/0x4b0
exc_page_fault+0x88/0x300
asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&fs_info->reloc_mutex --> &mm->mmap_lock#2 --> sb_pagefaults
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(sb_pagefaults);
lock(&mm->mmap_lock#2);
lock(sb_pagefaults);
lock(&fs_info->reloc_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by systemd-journal/509:
#0: ffff97083bdec8b8 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: do_user_addr_fault+0x12e/0x4b0
#1: ffff97083144d598 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x59/0x560 [btrfs]
#2: ffff97083144d6a8 (sb_internal){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: start_transaction+0x3f8/0x500 [btrfs]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 509 Comm: systemd-journal Not tainted 5.8.0-0.rc3.1.fc33.x86_64+debug #1
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x92/0xc8
check_noncircular+0x134/0x150
__lock_acquire+0x1241/0x20c0
lock_acquire+0xb0/0x400
? btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs]
? lock_acquire+0xb0/0x400
? btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs]
__mutex_lock+0x7b/0x820
? btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs]
? kvm_sched_clock_read+0x14/0x30
? sched_clock+0x5/0x10
? sched_clock_cpu+0xc/0xb0
btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x44/0x70 [btrfs]
start_transaction+0xd2/0x500 [btrfs]
btrfs_dirty_inode+0x44/0xd0 [btrfs]
file_update_time+0xc6/0x120
btrfs_page_mkwrite+0xda/0x560 [btrfs]
? sched_clock+0x5/0x10
do_page_mkwrite+0x4f/0x130
do_wp_page+0x3b0/0x4f0
handle_mm_fault+0xf47/0x1850
do_user_addr_fault+0x1fc/0x4b0
exc_page_fault+0x88/0x300
? asm_exc_page_fault+0x8/0x30
asm_exc_page_fault+0x1e/0x30
RIP: 0033:0x7fa3972fdbfe
Code: Bad RIP value.
Fix this by not holding the ->device_list_mutex at this point. The
device_list_mutex exists to protect us from modifying the device list
while the file system is running.
However it can also be modified by doing a scan on a device. But this
action is specifically protected by the uuid_mutex, which we are holding
here. We cannot race with opening at this point because we have the
->s_mount lock held during the mount. Not having the
->device_list_mutex here is perfectly safe as we're not going to change
the devices at this point.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19+
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ add some comments ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
@@ -155,7 +155,9 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrf
*
* global::fs_devs - add, remove, updates to the global list
*
- * does not protect: manipulation of the fs_devices::devices list!
+ * does not protect: manipulation of the fs_devices::devices list in general
+ * but in mount context it could be used to exclude list modifications by eg.
+ * scan ioctl
*
* btrfs_device::name - renames (write side), read is RCU
*
@@ -168,6 +170,9 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrf
* may be used to exclude some operations from running concurrently without any
* modifications to the list (see write_all_supers)
*
+ * Is not required at mount and close times, because our device list is
+ * protected by the uuid_mutex at that point.
+ *
* balance_mutex
* -------------
* protects balance structures (status, state) and context accessed from
@@ -656,6 +661,11 @@ static void btrfs_free_stale_devices(con
}
}
+/*
+ * This is only used on mount, and we are protected from competing things
+ * messing with our fs_devices by the uuid_mutex, thus we do not need the
+ * fs_devices->device_list_mutex here.
+ */
static int btrfs_open_one_device(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices,
struct btrfs_device *device, fmode_t flags,
void *holder)
@@ -1153,8 +1163,14 @@ int btrfs_open_devices(struct btrfs_fs_d
int ret;
lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex);
+ /*
+ * The device_list_mutex cannot be taken here in case opening the
+ * underlying device takes further locks like bd_mutex.
+ *
+ * We also don't need the lock here as this is called during mount and
+ * exclusion is provided by uuid_mutex
+ */
- mutex_lock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
if (fs_devices->opened) {
fs_devices->opened++;
ret = 0;
@@ -1162,7 +1178,6 @@ int btrfs_open_devices(struct btrfs_fs_d
list_sort(NULL, &fs_devices->devices, devid_cmp);
ret = open_fs_devices(fs_devices, flags, holder);
}
- mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
return ret;
}
From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> commit 18c850fdc5a801bad4977b0f1723761d42267e45 upstream. There's long existed a lockdep splat because we open our bdev's under the ->device_list_mutex at mount time, which acquires the bd_mutex. Usually this goes unnoticed, but if you do loopback devices at all suddenly the bd_mutex comes with a whole host of other dependencies, which results in the splat when you mount a btrfs file system.