The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 01d01caf19ff7c537527d352d169c4368375c0a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Josef Bacik josef@toxicpanda.com Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 15:12:28 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: move the chunk_mutex in btrfs_read_chunk_tree
We are currently getting this lockdep splat in btrfs/161:
====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.8.0-rc5+ #20 Tainted: G E ------------------------------------------------------ mount/678048 is trying to acquire lock: ffff9b769f15b6e0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs]
but task is already holding lock: ffff9b76abdb08d0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x6a/0x800 [btrfs]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0 btrfs_init_new_device+0x2d2/0x1240 [btrfs] btrfs_ioctl+0x1de/0x2d20 [btrfs] ksys_ioctl+0x87/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
-> #0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1240/0x2460 lock_acquire+0xab/0x360 __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0 clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x330/0x800 [btrfs] open_ctree+0xb7c/0x18ce [btrfs] btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x13/0xfa [btrfs] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 fc_mount+0xe/0x40 vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0x90 btrfs_mount+0x13b/0x3e0 [btrfs] legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 do_mount+0x7de/0xb30 __x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex); lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by mount/678048: #0: ffff9b75ff5fb0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#63/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: alloc_super+0xb5/0x380 #1: ffffffffc0c2fbc8 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x54/0x800 [btrfs] #2: ffff9b76abdb08d0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x6a/0x800 [btrfs]
stack backtrace: CPU: 2 PID: 678048 Comm: mount Tainted: G E 5.8.0-rc5+ #20 Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M./890FX Deluxe5, BIOS P1.40 05/03/2011 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x96/0xd0 check_noncircular+0x162/0x180 __lock_acquire+0x1240/0x2460 ? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x12/0x20 lock_acquire+0xab/0x360 ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] __mutex_lock+0x8b/0x8f0 ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60 ? cpumask_next+0x16/0x20 ? module_assert_mutex_or_preempt+0x14/0x40 ? __module_address+0x28/0xf0 ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] ? static_obj+0x4f/0x60 ? lockdep_init_map_waits+0x43/0x200 ? clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] clone_fs_devices+0x4d/0x170 [btrfs] btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x330/0x800 [btrfs] open_ctree+0xb7c/0x18ce [btrfs] ? super_setup_bdi_name+0x79/0xd0 btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x13/0xfa [btrfs] ? vfs_parse_fs_string+0x84/0xb0 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60 ? kfree+0x2b5/0x310 legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 fc_mount+0xe/0x40 vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0x90 btrfs_mount+0x13b/0x3e0 [btrfs] ? cred_has_capability+0x7c/0x120 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x60 ? legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 do_mount+0x7de/0xb30 ? memdup_user+0x4e/0x90 __x64_sys_mount+0x8e/0xd0 do_syscall_64+0x52/0xb0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
This is because btrfs_read_chunk_tree() can come upon DEV_EXTENT's and then read the device, which takes the device_list_mutex. The device_list_mutex needs to be taken before the chunk_mutex, so this is a problem. We only really need the chunk mutex around adding the chunk, so move the mutex around read_one_chunk.
An argument could be made that we don't even need the chunk_mutex here as it's during mount, and we are protected by various other locks. However we already have special rules for ->device_list_mutex, and I'd rather not have another special case for ->chunk_mutex.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.19+ Reviewed-by: Anand Jain anand.jain@oracle.com Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik josef@toxicpanda.com Reviewed-by: David Sterba dsterba@suse.com Signed-off-by: David Sterba dsterba@suse.com
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 084b8227ea2c..d7670e2a9f39 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -7077,7 +7077,6 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) * otherwise we don't need it. */ mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex); - mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
/* * It is possible for mount and umount to race in such a way that @@ -7135,7 +7134,9 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) } else if (found_key.type == BTRFS_CHUNK_ITEM_KEY) { struct btrfs_chunk *chunk; chunk = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_chunk); + mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); ret = read_one_chunk(&found_key, leaf, chunk); + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); if (ret) goto error; } @@ -7165,7 +7166,6 @@ int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) } ret = 0; error: - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); mutex_unlock(&uuid_mutex);
btrfs_free_path(path);