On 2023/12/12 20:41, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 12-12-23 17:36:34, Baokun Li wrote:
>> The following concurrency may cause the data read to be inconsistent with
>> the data on disk:
>>
>>               cpu1                           cpu2
>> ------------------------------|------------------------------
>>                                 // Buffered write 2048 from 0
>>                                 ext4_buffered_write_iter
>>                                  generic_perform_write
>>                                   copy_page_from_iter_atomic
>>                                   ext4_da_write_end
>>                                    ext4_da_do_write_end
>>                                     block_write_end
>>                                      __block_commit_write
>>                                       folio_mark_uptodate
>> // Buffered read 4096 from 0          smp_wmb()
>> ext4_file_read_iter                   set_bit(PG_uptodate, folio_flags)
>>   generic_file_read_iter            i_size_write // 2048
>>    filemap_read                     unlock_page(page)
>>     filemap_get_pages
>>      filemap_get_read_batch
>>      folio_test_uptodate(folio)
>>       ret = test_bit(PG_uptodate, folio_flags)
>>       if (ret)
>>        smp_rmb();
>>        // Ensure that the data in page 0-2048 is up-to-date.
>>
>>                                 // New buffered write 2048 from 2048
>>                                 ext4_buffered_write_iter
>>                                  generic_perform_write
>>                                   copy_page_from_iter_atomic
>>                                   ext4_da_write_end
>>                                    ext4_da_do_write_end
>>                                     block_write_end
>>                                      __block_commit_write
>>                                       folio_mark_uptodate
>>                                        smp_wmb()
>>                                        set_bit(PG_uptodate, folio_flags)
>>                                     i_size_write // 4096
>>                                     unlock_page(page)
>>
>>     isize = i_size_read(inode) // 4096
>>     // Read the latest isize 4096, but without smp_rmb(), there may be
>>     // Load-Load disorder resulting in the data in the 2048-4096 range
>>     // in the page is not up-to-date.
>>     copy_page_to_iter
>>     // copyout 4096
>>
>> In the concurrency above, we read the updated i_size, but there is no read
>> barrier to ensure that the data in the page is the same as the i_size at
>> this point, so we may copy the unsynchronized page out. Hence adding the
>> missing read memory barrier to fix this.
>>
>> This is a Load-Load reordering issue, which only occurs on some weak
>> mem-ordering architectures (e.g. ARM64, ALPHA), but not on strong
>> mem-ordering architectures (e.g. X86). And theoretically the problem
> AFAIK x86 can also reorder loads vs loads so the problem can in theory
> happen on x86 as well.

According to what I read in the /perfbook /at the link below,

  Loads Reordered After Loads does not happen on x86.

pdf sheet 562 corresponds to page 550,

    Table 15.5: Summary of Memory Ordering

https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/paulmck/perfbook/perfbook-1c.2023.06.11a.pdf

>> doesn't only happen on ext4, filesystems that call filemap_read() but
>> don't hold inode lock (e.g. btrfs, f2fs, ubifs ...) will have this
>> problem, while filesystems with inode lock (e.g. xfs, nfs) won't have
>> this problem.
>>
>> Cc:stable@kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li<libaokun1@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/filemap.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
>> index 71f00539ac00..6324e2ac3e74 100644
>> --- a/mm/filemap.c
>> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
>> @@ -2607,6 +2607,9 @@ ssize_t filemap_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
>>   			goto put_folios;
>>   		end_offset = min_t(loff_t, isize, iocb->ki_pos + iter->count);
>>   
>> +		/* Ensure that the page cache within isize is updated. */
> Barries have to be in pairs to work and it is a good practice to document
> this. So here I'd have comment like:
> 		/*
> 		 * Pairs with a barrier in
> 		 * block_write_end()->mark_buffer_dirty() or other page
> 		 * dirtying routines like iomap_write_end() to ensure
> 		 * changes to page contents are visible before we see
> 		 * increased inode size.
> 		 */
>
> 								Honza

That's a very accurate description! Thanks a lot!

I will add this comment in the next version.

>> +		smp_rmb();
>> +
>>   		/*
>>   		 * Once we start copying data, we don't want to be touching any
>>   		 * cachelines that might be contended:
>> -- 
>> 2.31.1
>>

Thanks!
-- 
With Best Regards,
Baokun Li
.