Re: [PATCH] btrfs: don't let shrinker touch extent_maps that are being logged
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 2026-06-29 at 15:19 +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 2:41 PM Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The extent map shrinker can free an extent map that is still owned by an > > in-flight fsync and still linked on the inode's modified_extents list, > > corrupting that list and eventually causing an RCU stall. > > > > btrfs_scan_inode() currently skips EXTENT_FLAG_PINNED maps, then calls > > btrfs_remove_extent_mapping() followed by btrfs_free_extent_map(): > > > > if (em->flags & EXTENT_FLAG_PINNED) > > goto next; > > ... > > btrfs_remove_extent_mapping(inode, em); > > btrfs_free_extent_map(em); > > > > But btrfs_remove_extent_mapping() deliberately does NOT unlink a map that > > has EXTENT_FLAG_LOGGING set: > > > > if (!(em->flags & EXTENT_FLAG_LOGGING)) > > list_del_init(&em->list); > > remove_em(inode, em); > > > > This sets up a UAF situation where a later fsync() can trip over the > > now-freed extent_map still on the modified_extents() list. > > I don't see how that can happen, because fsync always takes the > inode's i_mmap_lock (in write/exclusive mode), and btrfs_scan_inode() > takes the same lock too (in shared/read mode). > EXTENT_FLAG_LOGGING is only set and cleared during fsync, so how can > the shrinker race with fsync? > ...and yet, the vmcore shows that the shrinker hit an extent_map that had LOGGING set while holding the i_mmap_lock. I had hoped to add an assertion here that LOGGING couldn't be set on the em's after taking the i_mmap_lock, but that's not viable: The problem is that the i_mmap_lock coverage isn't complete. I had Claude assist me with some analysis so take it with a hefty grain of salt but the problem is that the em tree can contain em's from other inodes where the i_mmap_lock is not held: -----------------------8<--------------------- ...that inode is in progress, therefore no em in its tree should have LOGGING set. Your invariant is the right one. But it's violated, because the i_mmap_lock interlock is incomplete. Two facts: 1. tree-log.c never takes i_mmap_lock — grep returns 0 occurrences. Only btrfs_sync_file takes it (file.c:1608/1610), and only on the one inode being fsync'd. 2. A single fsync logs many other inodes, and each can set LOGGING on its own ems via btrfs_log_changed_extents(). btrfs_log_inode() is called recursively on conflicting inodes, parent directories, and referenced inodes: tree-log.c:5982 btrfs_log_inode(di_inode, log_mode) # dir dentries tree-log.c:6339 btrfs_log_inode(inode, LOG_INODE_ALL) # conflicting inodes tree-log.c:6900 btrfs_log_inode(di_inode, log_mode) # new dir dentries tree-log.c:7389 btrfs_log_inode(dir_inode, LOG_INODE_ALL) # log_all_parents tree-log.c:7488 btrfs_log_inode(inode, ...) # referenced inodes 2. For all of these, btrfs_sync_file holds i_mmap_lock on the original fsync'd inode — not on these side inodes. So a side inode X gets LOGGING set on its ems while X's own i_mmap_lock is free. So the shrinker can down_read_trylock(X->i_mmap_lock) successfully (nobody holds it) and walk X's tree while X's ems are LOGGING-flagged → it removes+frees one → corruption. The interlock only protects the directly-fsync'd inode, not the inodes logged as its dependencies. > Also, there should be no () after modified_extents (it's not a function name). > > Sorry, early morning typo. Fixed in my local repo. > > > > > Fix it by having the shrinker skip maps that are being logged, the same > > way it skips pinned maps. Such a map is owned by the in-flight fsync and > > will become reclaimable again once logging clears the flag. > > > > Fixes: 956a17d9d050 ("btrfs: add a shrinker for extent maps") > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > > --- > > We've started hitting a number of these problems in our fleet. It > > seems to mostly happen on ARM64 architecture, but there have been some > > WARN_ONs that popped on x86_64 too. > > --- > > fs/btrfs/extent_map.c | 8 +++++++- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c > > index fce9c5cc0122..128f7800e101 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_map.c > > @@ -1166,7 +1166,13 @@ static long btrfs_scan_inode(struct btrfs_inode *inode, struct btrfs_em_shrink_c > > em = rb_entry(node, struct extent_map, rb_node); > > ctx->scanned++; > > > > - if (em->flags & EXTENT_FLAG_PINNED) > > + /* > > + * Skip extent maps that are pinned or are being logged. The > > + * i_mmap_lock should prevent this from seeing LOGGING on extent_maps > > + * directly associated with inode, but em may be associated with > > + * other, dependent inodes and their locks are not held. > > + */ > > + if (em->flags & (EXTENT_FLAG_PINNED | EXTENT_FLAG_LOGGING)) > > goto next; > > > > /* > > > > --- > > base-commit: dc59e4fea9d83f03bad6bddf3fa2e52491777482 > > change-id: 20260629-btrfs-skip-logging-3e31701d9647 > > > > Best regards, > > -- > > Jeff Layton <[email protected]> > > > > -- Jeff Layton <[email protected]>