Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Replaced the Code of Conduct with the Code of Conflict #599

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Replaced the Code of Conduct with the Code of Conflict #599

wants to merge 2 commits into from
+28 −81

Conversation

AshtonSnapp
Copy link

Due to the amount of controversy following the installation of the Code of Conduct, I am opening this pull request to replace it with the original Code of Conflict, to, as put by Joey Pabalinas, "Unfuck our Codes of Conduct", and to stop the controversy and drama (two things I never liked).

@AshtonSnapp
Fixed the CoC by bringing the original back
882075c 
Removed the Code of Conduct.
Brought back the Code of Conflict.
@AshtonSnapp
Removed my little message
43577de
@KernelPRBot
Copy link

Hi @AshtonSnapp!

Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel!

Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.

Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process.

Here's what to do:

  • Format your contribution according to kernel requirements
  • Decide who to send your contribution to
  • Set up your system to send your contribution as an email
  • Send your contribution and wait for feedback

How do I format my contribution?

The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations.

Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea.

You can create patches with git format-patch.

Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary.

Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with.

Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel.

Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this.

Who do I send my contribution to?

The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes.

If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the get_maintainer.pl script in the kernel source can help you.

get_maintainer.pl will take the patch or patches you created in the previous step, and tell you who is responsible for them, and what mailing lists are used. You can also take a look at the MAINTAINERS file by hand.

Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches.

It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.)

How do I send my contribution?

Use git send-email, which will ensure that your patches are formatted in the standard manner. In order to use git send-email, you'll need to configure git to use your SMTP email server.

For more information about using git send-email, look at the Git documentation or type git help send-email. There are a number of useful guides and tutorials about git send-email that can be found on the internet.

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed.

Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine.

If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:

If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers!

I sent my patch - now what?

You wait.

You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at.

Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:

  • You might get a response to your email. Often these will be comments, which may require you to make changes to your patch, or explain why your way is the best way. You should respond to these comments, and you may need to submit another revision of your patch to address the issues raised.
  • Your patch might be merged into the subsystem tree. Code that becomes part of Linux isn't merged into the main repository straight away - it first goes into the subsystem tree, which is managed by the subsystem maintainer. It is then batched up with a number of other changes sent to Linus for inclusion. (This process is described in some detail in the kernel development process guide).
  • Your patch might be ignored completely. This happens sometimes - don't take it personally. Here's what to do:
    • Wait a bit more - patches often take several weeks to get a response; more if they were sent at a busy time.
    • Kernel developers often silently ignore patches that break the rules. Check for obvious violations of the Submitting Patches guidelines, the style guidelines, and any other documentation you can find about your subsystem. Check that you're sending your patch to the right place.
    • Try again later. When you resend it, don't add angry commentary, as that will get your patch ignored. It might also get you silently blacklisted.

Further information

Happy hacking!

This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot.

@SteveHeist
Copy link

I'd vote in favor of #594 - does the same thing

@srvmux
Copy link

srvmux commented Sep 26, 2018

@SteveHeist I would vote for anything that gets us back on track

@felipemullen
Copy link

yes, and #593

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 27, 2018

I agree.
We have many people committing from different backgrounds all over the world, because of this people hold their own ideals. This could prevent a patch being made just because the committer holds ideals that conflicts with the CoC. Not to mention some people that make commits might not have a lot of social experience or may interpret things differently than others. Some people have a hard time distinguishing right from wrong, but should we be exiling or denying them just because we think something is right? If you want to be inclusive you want free flow of thought. The CoC imposes that gender, sex, race is relevant to committing to a open source project, but this counterproductive. If we just ignore the fact that we are different then people will treat each other the same not the other way around because by identifying with a group you create exclusiveness.

@felipemullen
Copy link

felipemullen commented Sep 27, 2018 •
edited
Loading

@SilicaAndPina thanks for sharing that, it really opened my eyes...

Have the rest of you read the things CoralineAda say? I'm seriously at a loss for words. It's just pure hate and malice.

Is this what we are supposed to stand by? Because I won't. I choose to respect ALL people. Not a chosen inside group that aligns with my own world views.

fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this pull request Mar 15, 2021
@intel-lab-lkp
Staging: rtl8723bs: fix spaces in rtw_mlme_ext.h
969e82b 
This commit fixes the following checkpatch.pl errors:

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#307: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:307:
    +	char* str;

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#313: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:313:
    +	char* str;

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo *	bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#592: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:592:
    +int WMM_param_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie *	pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#595: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:595:
    +void HT_caps_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#596: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:596:
    +void HT_info_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#599: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:599:
    +void ERP_IE_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#606: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:606:
    +void update_capinfo(struct adapter * Adapter, u16 updateCap);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#633: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:633:
    +void report_del_sta_event(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char* MacAddr, unsigned short reason);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#634: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:634:
    +void report_add_sta_event(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char* MacAddr, int cam_idx);

Signed-off-by: Marco Cesati <[email protected]>
fengguang pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this pull request Mar 16, 2021
@gregkh
Staging: rtl8723bs: fix spaces in rtw_mlme_ext.h
95815c0 
This commit fixes the following checkpatch.pl errors:

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#307: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:307:
    +	char* str;

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#313: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:313:
    +	char* str;

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo *	bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#592: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:592:
    +int WMM_param_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie *	pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#595: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:595:
    +void HT_caps_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#596: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:596:
    +void HT_info_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#599: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:599:
    +void ERP_IE_handler(struct adapter *padapter, struct ndis_80211_var_ie * pIE);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#606: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:606:
    +void update_capinfo(struct adapter * Adapter, u16 updateCap);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#633: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:633:
    +void report_del_sta_event(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char* MacAddr, unsigned short reason);

    ERROR:POINTER_LOCATION: "foo* bar" should be "foo *bar"
    torvalds#634: FILE: ./include/rtw_mlme_ext.h:634:
    +void report_add_sta_event(struct adapter *padapter, unsigned char* MacAddr, int cam_idx);

Reviewed-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Marco Cesati <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
intel-lab-lkp pushed a commit to intel-lab-lkp/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 1, 2022
@intel-lab-lkp
io_uring: fix two assignments in if conditions
239fabe 
Fixs two error:

"ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition
torvalds#130: FILE: io_uring/net.c:130:
+       if (!(issue_flags & IO_URING_F_UNLOCKED) &&

ERROR: do not use assignment in if condition
torvalds#599: FILE: io_uring/poll.c:599:
+       } else if (!(issue_flags & IO_URING_F_UNLOCKED) &&"
reported by checkpatch.pl in net.c and poll.c .

Signed-off-by: Xinghui Li <[email protected]>
akiernan pushed a commit to zuma-array/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2022
@akiernan
vdin: clean up dead code and bad compare
1060602 
PD#151225: driver defect clean up:
torvalds#228
torvalds#262
torvalds#354
torvalds#407
torvalds#442
torvalds#445
torvalds#461
torvalds#576
torvalds#580
torvalds#598
torvalds#599
torvalds#615
torvalds#616
torvalds#671
torvalds#756
torvalds#760
torvalds#874

Change-Id: I1bc47c3e30ecfa1ca44e53f91201aa4e09ff19f5
Signed-off-by: Bencheng Jing <[email protected]>
akiernan pushed a commit to zuma-array/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2022
@akiernan
vdin: clean up dead code and bad compare
d8a9433 
PD#151225: driver defect clean up:
torvalds#228
torvalds#262
torvalds#354
torvalds#407
torvalds#442
torvalds#445
torvalds#461
torvalds#576
torvalds#580
torvalds#598
torvalds#599
torvalds#615
torvalds#616
torvalds#671
torvalds#756
torvalds#760
torvalds#874

Change-Id: I1bc47c3e30ecfa1ca44e53f91201aa4e09ff19f5
Signed-off-by: Bencheng Jing <[email protected]>
intel-lab-lkp pushed a commit to intel-lab-lkp/linux that referenced this pull request Jan 10, 2023
@intel-lab-lkp
rtla: Add hwnoise tool
5264871 
The hwnoise tool is a special mode for the osnoise top tool.

hwnoise dispatches the osnoise tracer and displays a summary of the noise.
The difference is that it runs the tracer with the OSNOISE_IRQ_DISABLE
option set, thus only allowing only hardware-related noise, resulting in
a simplified output. hwnoise has the same features of osnoise.

An example of the tool's output:

 # rtla hwnoise -c 1-11 -T 1 -d 10m -q
                                           Hardware-related Noise
 duration:   0 00:10:00 | time is in us
 CPU Period       Runtime        Noise  % CPU Aval   Max Noise   Max Single          HW          NMI
   1 torvalds#599       599000000          138    99.99997           3            3           4           74
   2 torvalds#599       599000000           85    99.99998           3            3           4           75
   3 torvalds#599       599000000           86    99.99998           4            3           6           75
   4 torvalds#599       599000000           81    99.99998           4            4           2           75
   5 torvalds#599       599000000           85    99.99998           2            2           2           75

Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
intel-lab-lkp pushed a commit to intel-lab-lkp/linux that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2023
@intel-lab-lkp
rtla: Add hwnoise tool
ccd6882 
The hwnoise tool is a special mode for the osnoise top tool.

hwnoise dispatches the osnoise tracer and displays a summary of the noise.
The difference is that it runs the tracer with the OSNOISE_IRQ_DISABLE
option set, thus only allowing only hardware-related noise, resulting in
a simplified output. hwnoise has the same features of osnoise.

An example of the tool's output:

 # rtla hwnoise -c 1-5 -T 1 -d 10m -q
                                           Hardware-related Noise
 duration:   0 00:10:00 | time is in us
 CPU Period       Runtime        Noise  % CPU Aval   Max Noise   Max Single          HW          NMI
   1 torvalds#599       599000000          138    99.99997           3            3           4           74
   2 torvalds#599       599000000           85    99.99998           3            3           4           75
   3 torvalds#599       599000000           86    99.99998           4            3           6           75
   4 torvalds#599       599000000           81    99.99998           4            4           2           75
   5 torvalds#599       599000000           85    99.99998           2            2           2           75

Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
intel-lab-lkp pushed a commit to intel-lab-lkp/linux that referenced this pull request Feb 7, 2023
@intel-lab-lkp
rtla: Add hwnoise tool
a80809b 
The hwnoise tool is a special mode for the osnoise top tool.

hwnoise dispatches the osnoise tracer and displays a summary of the noise.
The difference is that it runs the tracer with the OSNOISE_IRQ_DISABLE
option set, thus only allowing only hardware-related noise, resulting in
a simplified output. hwnoise has the same features of osnoise.

An example of the tool's output:

 # rtla hwnoise -c 1-11 -T 1 -d 10m -q
                                           Hardware-related Noise
 duration:   0 00:10:00 | time is in us
 CPU Period       Runtime        Noise  % CPU Aval   Max Noise   Max Single          HW          NMI
   1 torvalds#599       599000000          138    99.99997           3            3           4           74
   2 torvalds#599       599000000           85    99.99998           3            3           4           75
   3 torvalds#599       599000000           86    99.99998           4            3           6           75
   4 torvalds#599       599000000           81    99.99998           4            4           2           75
   5 torvalds#599       599000000           85    99.99998           2            2           2           75

Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
intel-lab-lkp pushed a commit to intel-lab-lkp/linux that referenced this pull request Feb 15, 2023
@rostedt
rtla: Add hwnoise tool
1f42835 
The hwnoise tool is a special mode for the osnoise top tool.

hwnoise dispatches the osnoise tracer and displays a summary of the noise.
The difference is that it runs the tracer with the OSNOISE_IRQ_DISABLE
option set, thus only allowing only hardware-related noise, resulting in
a simplified output. hwnoise has the same features of osnoise.

An example of the tool's output:

 # rtla hwnoise -c 1-11 -T 1 -d 10m -q
                                           Hardware-related Noise
 duration:   0 00:10:00 | time is in us
 CPU Period       Runtime        Noise  % CPU Aval   Max Noise   Max Single          HW          NMI
   1 torvalds#599       599000000          138    99.99997           3            3           4           74
   2 torvalds#599       599000000           85    99.99998           3            3           4           75
   3 torvalds#599       599000000           86    99.99998           4            3           6           75
   4 torvalds#599       599000000           81    99.99998           4            4           2           75
   5 torvalds#599       599000000           85    99.99998           2            2           2           75

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/2d6f49a6f3a4f8b51b2c806458b1cff71ad4d014.1675805361.git.bristot@kernel.org

Signed-off-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <[email protected]>
Cc: Juri Lelli <[email protected]>
Cc: Clark Williams <[email protected]>
Cc: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <[email protected]>
morbidrsa added a commit to morbidrsa/linux that referenced this pull request Aug 15, 2024
@morbidrsa
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
9e26957 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
intel-lab-lkp pushed a commit to intel-lab-lkp/linux that referenced this pull request Aug 15, 2024
@morbidrsa @intel-lab-lkp
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
01d7033 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
morbidrsa added a commit to morbidrsa/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2024
@morbidrsa
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
dd0cb64 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
intel-lab-lkp pushed a commit to intel-lab-lkp/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 10, 2024
@morbidrsa @intel-lab-lkp
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
bbb6fbd 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
morbidrsa added a commit to morbidrsa/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 11, 2024
@morbidrsa
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
b426777 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
9ab803a 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Oct 7, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
1a80e90 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Oct 9, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
cedd17a 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Oct 11, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
a1fe3c4 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Oct 14, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
43b0aab 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
fe46c64 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
82257bf 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
c8dd8ca 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
aa5234b 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
4ba19f6 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Nov 8, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
86bef04 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kdave pushed a commit to kdave/btrfs-devel that referenced this pull request Nov 11, 2024
@morbidrsa @kdave
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
8cca35c 
Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next torvalds#599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@alandoni alandoni alandoni approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
6 participants
@AshtonSnapp @KernelPRBot @SteveHeist @srvmux @felipemullen @alandoni