Re: [PATCH] btrfs: resume qgroup rescan on rw remount

[Aleksa Sarai]

On 07/12/2017 03:03 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:56:36PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > On 10.07.2017 16:12, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > > On  4.07.2017 14:49, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > > > Several distributions mount the "proper root" as ro during initrd and
> > > > then remount it as rw before pivot_root(2). Thus, if a rescan had been
> > > > aborted by a previous shutdown, the rescan would never be resumed.
> > > >
> > > > This issue would manifest itself as several btrfs ioctl(2)s causing the
> > > > entire machine to hang when btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion was hit
> > > > (due to the fs_info->qgroup_rescan_running flag being set but the rescan
> > > > itself not being resumed). Notably, Docker's btrfs storage driver makes
> > > > regular use of BTRFS_QUOTA_CTL_DISABLE and BTRFS_IOC_QUOTA_RESCAN_WAIT
> > > > (causing this problem to be manifested on boot for some machines).
> > > >
> > > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v3.11+
> > > > Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > Fixes: b382a324b60f ("Btrfs: fix qgroup rescan resume on mount")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Indeed, looking at the code it seems that b382a324b60f ("Btrfs: fix
> > > qgroup rescan resume on mount") missed adding the qgroup_rescan_resume
> > > in the remount path. One thing which I couldn't verify though is whether
> > > reading fs_info->qgroup_flags without any locking is safe from remount
> > > context.
> > >
> > > During remount I don't see any locks taken that prevent operations which
> > > can modify qgroup_flags.
> >
> > Further inspection reveals that the access rules to qgroup_flags are
> > somewhat broken so this patch doesn't really make things any worse than
> > they are.
>
> The usage follows a pattern for a bitfield, updated by set_bit/clear_bit
> etc. The updates to the state or inconsistency is not safe, so some
> updates could get lost under some circumstances.
>
> Patch added to devel queue, possibly will be submitted to 4.13 so stable
> can pick it.

Looks like it wasn't merged in the 4.13 window (so stable hasn't picked 
it), will this be submitted for 4.14? Thanks.

--
Aleksa Sarai
Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
https://www.cyphar.com/