From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:53:56 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: btrfs: add barriers to btrfs_sync_log before log_commit_wait wakeups
X-Git-Tag: v4.17.12~229
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=b57325823ce0bd66a17841b9dd11f380565567c5;p=thirdparty%2Fkernel%2Fstable.git

btrfs: add barriers to btrfs_sync_log before log_commit_wait wakeups

[ Upstream commit 3d3a2e610ea5e7c6d4f9481ecce5d8e2d8317843 ]

Currently the code assumes that there's an implied barrier by the
sequence of code preceding the wakeup, namely the mutex unlock.

As Nikolay pointed out:

I think this is wrong (not your code) but the original assumption that
the RELEASE semantics provided by mutex_unlock is sufficient.
According to memory-barriers.txt:

Section 'LOCK ACQUISITION FUNCTIONS' states:

 (2) RELEASE operation implication:

     Memory operations issued before the RELEASE will be completed before the
     RELEASE operation has completed.

     Memory operations issued after the RELEASE *may* be completed before the
     RELEASE operation has completed.

(I've bolded the may portion)

The example given there:

As an example, consider the following:

    *A = a;
    *B = b;
    ACQUIRE
    *C = c;
    *D = d;
    RELEASE
    *E = e;
    *F = f;

The following sequence of events is acceptable:

    ACQUIRE, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, RELEASE

So if we assume that *C is modifying the flag which the waitqueue is checking,
and *E is the actual wakeup, then those accesses can be re-ordered...

IMHO this code should be considered broken...
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
index 8f23a94dab770..2009cea65d89d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -3116,8 +3116,11 @@ out_wake_log_root:
 	mutex_unlock(&log_root_tree->log_mutex);
 
 	/*
-	 * The barrier before waitqueue_active is implied by mutex_unlock
+	 * The barrier before waitqueue_active is needed so all the updates
+	 * above are seen by the woken threads. It might not be necessary, but
+	 * proving that seems to be hard.
 	 */
+	smp_mb();
 	if (waitqueue_active(&log_root_tree->log_commit_wait[index2]))
 		wake_up(&log_root_tree->log_commit_wait[index2]);
 out:
@@ -3128,8 +3131,11 @@ out:
 	mutex_unlock(&root->log_mutex);
 
 	/*
-	 * The barrier before waitqueue_active is implied by mutex_unlock
+	 * The barrier before waitqueue_active is needed so all the updates
+	 * above are seen by the woken threads. It might not be necessary, but
+	 * proving that seems to be hard.
 	 */
+	smp_mb();
 	if (waitqueue_active(&root->log_commit_wait[index1]))
 		wake_up(&root->log_commit_wait[index1]);
 	return ret;