btrfs: avoid load/store tearing races when checking if an inode was logged

[ Upstream commit 986bf6e ]

At inode_logged() we do a couple lockless checks for ->logged_trans, and
these are generally safe except the second one in case we get a load or
store tearing due to a concurrent call updating ->logged_trans (either at
btrfs_log_inode() or later at inode_logged()).

In the first case it's safe to compare to the current transaction ID since
once ->logged_trans is set the current transaction, we never set it to a
lower value.

In the second case, where we check if it's greater than zero, we are prone
to load/store tearing races, since we can have a concurrent task updating
to the current transaction ID with store tearing for example, instead of
updating with a single 64 bits write, to update with two 32 bits writes or
four 16 bits writes. In that case the reading side at inode_logged() could
see a positive value that does not match the current transaction and then
return a false negative.

Fix this by doing the second check while holding the inode's spinlock, add
some comments about it too. Also add the data_race() annotation to the
first check to avoid any reports from KCSAN (or similar tools) and comment
about it.

Fixes: 0f8ce49 ("btrfs: avoid inode logging during rename and link when possible")
Reviewed-by: Boris Burkov <boris@bur.io>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>

Author: fdmanana

fs/btrfs/tree-log.c

@@ -3351,15 +3351,32 @@ static int inode_logged(const struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 	struct btrfs_key key;
 	int ret;
 
-	if (inode->logged_trans == trans->transid)
+	/*
+	 * Quick lockless call, since once ->logged_trans is set to the current
+	 * transaction, we never set it to a lower value anywhere else.
+	 */
+	if (data_race(inode->logged_trans) == trans->transid)
 		return 1;
 
 	/*
-	 * If logged_trans is not 0, then we know the inode logged was not logged
-	 * in this transaction, so we can return false right away.
+	 * If logged_trans is not 0 and not trans->transid, then we know the
+	 * inode was not logged in this transaction, so we can return false
+	 * right away. We take the lock to avoid a race caused by load/store
+	 * tearing with a concurrent btrfs_log_inode() call or a concurrent task
+	 * in this function further below - an update to trans->transid can be
+	 * teared into two 32 bits updates for example, in which case we could
+	 * see a positive value that is not trans->transid and assume the inode
+	 * was not logged when it was.
 	 */
-	if (inode->logged_trans > 0)
+	spin_lock(&inode->lock);
+	if (inode->logged_trans == trans->transid) {
+		spin_unlock(&inode->lock);
+		return 1;
+	} else if (inode->logged_trans > 0) {
+		spin_unlock(&inode->lock);
 		return 0;
+	}
+	spin_unlock(&inode->lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * If no log tree was created for this root in this transaction, then