xfs: add missing ilock around dio write last extent alignment

xfs: add missing ilock around dio write last extent alignment

The iomap codepath (via get_blocks()) acquires and release the inode
lock in the case of a direct write that requires block allocation. This
is because xfs_iomap_write_direct() allocates a transaction, which means
the ilock must be dropped and reacquired after the transaction is
allocated and reserved.

xfs_iomap_write_direct() invokes xfs_iomap_eof_align_last_fsb() before
the transaction is created and thus before the ilock is reacquired. This
can lead to calls to xfs_iread_extents() and reads of the in-core extent
list without any synchronization (via xfs_bmap_eof() and
xfs_bmap_last_extent()). xfs_iread_extents() assert fails if the ilock
is not held, but this is not currently seen in practice as the current
callers had already invoked xfs_bmapi_read().

What has been seen in practice are reports of crashes down in the
xfs_bmap_eof() codepath on direct writes due to seemingly bogus pointer
references from xfs_iext_get_ext(). While an explicit reproducer is not
currently available to confirm the cause of the problem, crash analysis
and code inspection from David Jeffrey had identified the insufficient
locking.

xfs_iomap_eof_align_last_fsb() is called from other contexts with the
inode lock already held, so we cannot acquire it therein.
__xfs_get_blocks() acquires and drops the ilock with variable flags to
cover the event that the extent list must be read in. The common case is
that __xfs_get_blocks() acquires the shared ilock. To provide locking
around the last extent alignment call without adding more lock cycles to
the dio path, update xfs_iomap_write_direct() to expect the shared ilock
held on entry and do the extent alignment under its protection. Demote
the lock, if necessary, from __xfs_get_blocks() and push the
xfs_qm_dqattach() call outside of the shared lock critical section.
Also, add an assert to document that the extent list is always expected
to be present in this path. Otherwise, we risk a call to
xfs_iread_extents() while under the shared ilock. This is safe as all
current callers have executed an xfs_bmapi_read() call under the current
iolock context.

Reported-by: David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>