ceph: return EIO on invalid layout on GET_DATALOC ioctl

If the user calls GET_DATALOC on a file with an invalid (e.g.,
zeroed) layout, return EIO to userland.

Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
ceph: avoid 32-bit page index overflow

A pgoff_t is defined (by default) to have type (unsigned long).  On
architectures such as i686 that's a 32-bit type.  The ceph address
space code was attempting to produce 64 bit offsets by shifting a
page's index by PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT, but the result was not what was
desired because the shift occurred before the result got promoted
to 64 bits.

Fix this by converting all uses of page->index used in this way to
use the page_offset() macro, which ensures the 64-bit result has the
intended value.

This fixes http://tracker.newdream.net/issues/3112

Reported-by:  Mohamed Pakkeer <pakkeer.mohideen@realimage.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
Btrfs: pass lockdep rwsem metadata to async commit transaction

The freeze rwsem is taken by sb_start_intwrite() and dropped during the
commit_ or end_transaction().  In the async case, that happens in a worker
thread.  Tell lockdep the calling thread is releasing ownership of the
rwsem and the async thread is picking it up.

XFS plays the same trick in fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c.

Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
Btrfs: do not take cleanup_work_sem in btrfs_run_delayed_iputs()

Josef has suggested that this is not necessary.  Removing it also avoids
this lockdep splat (after the new sb_internal locking stuff was added):

[  604.090449] ======================================================
[  604.114819] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[  604.139262] 3.6.0-rc2-ceph-00144-g463b030 #1 Not tainted
[  604.162193] -------------------------------------------------------
[  604.186139] btrfs-cleaner/6669 is trying to acquire lock:
[  604.209555]  (sb_internal#2){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffffa0042b84>] start_transaction+0x124/0x430 [btrfs]
[  604.257100]
[  604.257100] but task is already holding lock:
[  604.300366]  (&fs_info->cleanup_work_sem){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffffa0048002>] btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0x72/0x130 [btrfs]
[  604.352989]
[  604.352989] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[  604.352989]
[  604.427104]
[  604.427104] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[  604.478493]
[  604.478493] -> #1 (&fs_info->cleanup_work_sem){.+.+..}:
[  604.529313]        [<ffffffff810b2c82>] lock_acquire+0xa2/0x140
[  604.559621]        [<ffffffff81632b69>] down_read+0x39/0x4e
[  604.589382]        [<ffffffffa004db98>] btrfs_lookup_dentry+0x218/0x550 [btrfs]
[  604.596161] btrfs: unlinked 1 orphans
[  604.675002]        [<ffffffffa006aadd>] create_subvol+0x62d/0x690 [btrfs]
[  604.708859]        [<ffffffffa006d666>] btrfs_mksubvol.isra.52+0x346/0x3a0 [btrfs]
[  604.772466]        [<ffffffffa006d7f2>] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_transid+0x132/0x190 [btrfs]
[  604.842245]        [<ffffffffa006d8ae>] btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x5e/0x80 [btrfs]
[  604.912852]        [<ffffffffa00708ae>] btrfs_ioctl+0x138e/0x1990 [btrfs]
[  604.951888]        [<ffffffff8118e9b8>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x98/0x560
[  604.989961]        [<ffffffff8118ef11>] sys_ioctl+0x91/0xa0
[  605.026628]        [<ffffffff8163d569>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[  605.064404]
[  605.064404] -> #0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+..}:
[  605.126832]        [<ffffffff810b25e8>] __lock_acquire+0x1ac8/0x1b90
[  605.163671]        [<ffffffff810b2c82>] lock_acquire+0xa2/0x140
[  605.200228]        [<ffffffff8117dac6>] __sb_start_write+0xc6/0x1b0
[  605.236818]        [<ffffffffa0042b84>] start_transaction+0x124/0x430 [btrfs]
[  605.274029]        [<ffffffffa00431a3>] btrfs_start_transaction+0x13/0x20 [btrfs]
[  605.340520]        [<ffffffffa004ccfa>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x19a/0x330 [btrfs]
[  605.378720]        [<ffffffff811972c8>] evict+0xb8/0x1c0
[  605.416057]        [<ffffffff811974d5>] iput+0x105/0x210
[  605.452373]        [<ffffffffa0048082>] btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0xf2/0x130 [btrfs]
[  605.521627]        [<ffffffffa003b5e1>] cleaner_kthread+0xa1/0x120 [btrfs]
[  605.560520]        [<ffffffff810791ee>] kthread+0xae/0xc0
[  605.598094]        [<ffffffff8163e744>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
[  605.636499]
[  605.636499] other info that might help us debug this:
[  605.636499]
[  605.736504]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[  605.736504]
[  605.801931]        CPU0                    CPU1
[  605.835126]        ----                    ----
[  605.867093]   lock(&fs_info->cleanup_work_sem);
[  605.898594]                                lock(sb_internal#2);
[  605.931954]                                lock(&fs_info->cleanup_work_sem);
[  605.965359]   lock(sb_internal#2);
[  605.994758]
[  605.994758]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[  605.994758]
[  606.075281] 2 locks held by btrfs-cleaner/6669:
[  606.104528]  #0:  (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa003b5d5>] cleaner_kthread+0x95/0x120 [btrfs]
[  606.165626]  #1:  (&fs_info->cleanup_work_sem){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffffa0048002>] btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0x72/0x130 [btrfs]
[  606.231297]
[  606.231297] stack backtrace:
[  606.287723] Pid: 6669, comm: btrfs-cleaner Not tainted 3.6.0-rc2-ceph-00144-g463b030 #1
[  606.347823] Call Trace:
[  606.376184]  [<ffffffff8162a77c>] print_circular_bug+0x1fb/0x20c
[  606.409243]  [<ffffffff810b25e8>] __lock_acquire+0x1ac8/0x1b90
[  606.441343]  [<ffffffffa0042b84>] ? start_transaction+0x124/0x430 [btrfs]
[  606.474583]  [<ffffffff810b2c82>] lock_acquire+0xa2/0x140
[  606.505934]  [<ffffffffa0042b84>] ? start_transaction+0x124/0x430 [btrfs]
[  606.539429]  [<ffffffff8132babd>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x5d/0xb0
[  606.571719]  [<ffffffff8117dac6>] __sb_start_write+0xc6/0x1b0
[  606.603498]  [<ffffffffa0042b84>] ? start_transaction+0x124/0x430 [btrfs]
[  606.637405]  [<ffffffffa0042b84>] ? start_transaction+0x124/0x430 [btrfs]
[  606.670165]  [<ffffffff81172e75>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0xb5/0x160
[  606.702144]  [<ffffffffa0042b84>] start_transaction+0x124/0x430 [btrfs]
[  606.735562]  [<ffffffffa00256a6>] ? block_rsv_add_bytes+0x56/0x80 [btrfs]
[  606.769861]  [<ffffffffa00431a3>] btrfs_start_transaction+0x13/0x20 [btrfs]
[  606.804575]  [<ffffffffa004ccfa>] btrfs_evict_inode+0x19a/0x330 [btrfs]
[  606.838756]  [<ffffffff81634c6b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x40
[  606.872010]  [<ffffffff811972c8>] evict+0xb8/0x1c0
[  606.903800]  [<ffffffff811974d5>] iput+0x105/0x210
[  606.935416]  [<ffffffffa0048082>] btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0xf2/0x130 [btrfs]
[  606.970510]  [<ffffffffa003b5d5>] ? cleaner_kthread+0x95/0x120 [btrfs]
[  607.005648]  [<ffffffffa003b5e1>] cleaner_kthread+0xa1/0x120 [btrfs]
[  607.040724]  [<ffffffffa003b540>] ? btrfs_destroy_delayed_refs.isra.102+0x220/0x220 [btrfs]
[  607.104740]  [<ffffffff810791ee>] kthread+0xae/0xc0
[  607.137119]  [<ffffffff810b379d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
[  607.169797]  [<ffffffff8163e744>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
[  607.202472]  [<ffffffff81635430>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
[  607.235884]  [<ffffffff81079140>] ? flush_kthread_work+0x1a0/0x1a0
[  607.268731]  [<ffffffff8163e740>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13

Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
Btrfs: set journal_info in async trans commit worker

We expect current->journal_info to point to the trans handle we are
committing.

Signed-off-by: Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>
Btrfs: move the sb_end_intwrite until after the throttle logic

Sage reported the following lockdep backtrace

=====================================
[ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
3.6.0-rc2-ceph-00171-gc7ed62d #1 Not tainted
-------------------------------------
btrfs-cleaner/7607 is trying to release lock (sb_internal) at:
[<ffffffffa00422ae>] btrfs_commit_transaction+0xa6e/0xb20 [btrfs]
but there are no more locks to release!

other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by btrfs-cleaner/7607:
 #0:  (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa003b405>] cleaner_kthread+0x95/0x120 [btrfs]

stack backtrace:
Pid: 7607, comm: btrfs-cleaner Not tainted 3.6.0-rc2-ceph-00171-gc7ed62d #1
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffffa00422ae>] ? btrfs_commit_transaction+0xa6e/0xb20 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffff810afa9e>] print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0xfe/0x110
 [<ffffffff810b289e>] lock_release_non_nested+0x1ee/0x310
 [<ffffffff81172f9b>] ? kmem_cache_free+0x7b/0x160
 [<ffffffffa004106c>] ? put_transaction+0x8c/0x130 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffffa00422ae>] ? btrfs_commit_transaction+0xa6e/0xb20 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffff810b2a95>] lock_release+0xd5/0x220
 [<ffffffff81173071>] ? kmem_cache_free+0x151/0x160
 [<ffffffff8117d9ed>] __sb_end_write+0x7d/0x90
 [<ffffffffa00422ae>] btrfs_commit_transaction+0xa6e/0xb20 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffff81079850>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x60/0x60
 [<ffffffff81634c6b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x40
 [<ffffffffa0042758>] __btrfs_end_transaction+0x368/0x3c0 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffffa0042808>] btrfs_end_transaction_throttle+0x18/0x20 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffffa00318f0>] btrfs_drop_snapshot+0x410/0x600 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffff8132babd>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x5d/0xb0
 [<ffffffffa00430ef>] btrfs_clean_old_snapshots+0xaf/0x150 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffffa003b405>] ? cleaner_kthread+0x95/0x120 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffffa003b419>] cleaner_kthread+0xa9/0x120 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffffa003b370>] ? btrfs_destroy_delayed_refs.isra.102+0x220/0x220 [btrfs]
 [<ffffffff810791ee>] kthread+0xae/0xc0
 [<ffffffff810b379d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
 [<ffffffff8163e744>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
 [<ffffffff81635430>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
 [<ffffffff81079140>] ? flush_kthread_work+0x1a0/0x1a0
 [<ffffffff8163e740>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13

This is because the throttle stuff can commit the transaction, which expects to
be the one stopping the intwrite stuff, but we've already done it in the
__btrfs_end_transaction.  Moving the sb_end_intewrite after this logic makes the
lockdep go away.  Thanks,

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>