[PATCH 4.7 39/59] bcache: RESERVE_PRIO is too small by one when prio_buckets() is a power of two.

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

4.7-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>

commit acc9cf8c66c66b2cbbdb4a375537edee72be64df upstream.

This patch fixes a cachedev registration-time allocation deadlock.
This can deadlock on boot if your initrd auto-registeres bcache devices:

Allocator thread:
[  720.727614] INFO: task bcache_allocato:3833 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
[  720.732361]  [<ffffffff816eeac7>] schedule+0x37/0x90
[  720.732963]  [<ffffffffa05192b8>] bch_bucket_alloc+0x188/0x360 [bcache]
[  720.733538]  [<ffffffff810e6950>] ? prepare_to_wait_event+0xf0/0xf0
[  720.734137]  [<ffffffffa05302bd>] bch_prio_write+0x19d/0x340 [bcache]
[  720.734715]  [<ffffffffa05190bf>] bch_allocator_thread+0x3ff/0x470 [bcache]
[  720.735311]  [<ffffffff816ee41c>] ? __schedule+0x2dc/0x950
[  720.735884]  [<ffffffffa0518cc0>] ? invalidate_buckets+0x980/0x980 [bcache]

Registration thread:
[  720.710403] INFO: task bash:3531 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
[  720.715226]  [<ffffffff816eeac7>] schedule+0x37/0x90
[  720.715805]  [<ffffffffa05235cd>] __bch_btree_map_nodes+0x12d/0x150 [bcache]
[  720.716409]  [<ffffffffa0522d30>] ? bch_btree_insert_check_key+0x1c0/0x1c0 [bcache]
[  720.717008]  [<ffffffffa05236e4>] bch_btree_insert+0xf4/0x170 [bcache]
[  720.717586]  [<ffffffff810e6950>] ? prepare_to_wait_event+0xf0/0xf0
[  720.718191]  [<ffffffffa0527d9a>] bch_journal_replay+0x14a/0x290 [bcache]
[  720.718766]  [<ffffffff810cc90d>] ? ttwu_do_activate.constprop.94+0x5d/0x70
[  720.719369]  [<ffffffff810cf684>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x1d4/0x350
[  720.719968]  [<ffffffffa05317d0>] run_cache_set+0x580/0x8e0 [bcache]
[  720.720553]  [<ffffffffa053302e>] register_bcache+0xe2e/0x13b0 [bcache]
[  720.721153]  [<ffffffff81354cef>] kobj_attr_store+0xf/0x20
[  720.721730]  [<ffffffff812a2dad>] sysfs_kf_write+0x3d/0x50
[  720.722327]  [<ffffffff812a225a>] kernfs_fop_write+0x12a/0x180
[  720.722904]  [<ffffffff81225177>] __vfs_write+0x37/0x110
[  720.723503]  [<ffffffff81228048>] ? __sb_start_write+0x58/0x110
[  720.724100]  [<ffffffff812cedb3>] ? security_file_permission+0x23/0xa0
[  720.724675]  [<ffffffff812258a9>] vfs_write+0xa9/0x1b0
[  720.725275]  [<ffffffff8102479c>] ? do_audit_syscall_entry+0x6c/0x70
[  720.725849]  [<ffffffff81226755>] SyS_write+0x55/0xd0
[  720.726451]  [<ffffffff8106a390>] ? do_page_fault+0x30/0x80
[  720.727045]  [<ffffffff816f2cae>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x71

The fifo code in upstream bcache can't use the last element in the buffer,
which was the cause of the bug: if you asked for a power of two size,
it'd give you a fifo that could hold one less than what you asked for
rather than allocating a buffer twice as big.

Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Eric Wheeler <bcache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---
 drivers/md/bcache/super.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
@@ -1818,7 +1818,7 @@ static int cache_alloc(struct cache_sb *
 	free = roundup_pow_of_two(ca->sb.nbuckets) >> 10;
 
 	if (!init_fifo(&ca->free[RESERVE_BTREE], 8, GFP_KERNEL) ||
-	    !init_fifo(&ca->free[RESERVE_PRIO], prio_buckets(ca), GFP_KERNEL) ||
+	    !init_fifo_exact(&ca->free[RESERVE_PRIO], prio_buckets(ca), GFP_KERNEL) ||
 	    !init_fifo(&ca->free[RESERVE_MOVINGGC], free, GFP_KERNEL) ||
 	    !init_fifo(&ca->free[RESERVE_NONE], free, GFP_KERNEL) ||
 	    !init_fifo(&ca->free_inc,	free << 2, GFP_KERNEL) ||