btrfs: update the bdev time directly when closing

btrfs: update the bdev time directly when closing

We update the ctime/mtime of a block device when we remove it so that
blkid knows the device changed.  However we do this by re-opening the
block device and calling filp_update_time.  This is more correct because
it'll call the inode->i_op->update_time if it exists, but the block dev
inodes do not do this.  Instead call generic_update_time() on the
bd_inode in order to avoid the blkdev_open path and get rid of the
following lockdep splat:

======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc2+ #406 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
losetup/11596 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff939640d2f538 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0

but task is already holding lock:
ffff939655510c68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #4 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
       __mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
       lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop]
       blkdev_get_whole+0x25/0xf0
       blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x168/0x3c0
       blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0
       do_dentry_open+0x161/0x390
       path_openat+0x3cc/0xa20
       do_filp_open+0x96/0x120
       do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130
       __x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
       do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

-> #3 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
       __mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
       blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x56/0x3c0
       blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0
       do_dentry_open+0x161/0x390
       path_openat+0x3cc/0xa20
       do_filp_open+0x96/0x120
       file_open_name+0xc7/0x170
       filp_open+0x2c/0x50
       btrfs_scratch_superblocks.part.0+0x10f/0x170
       btrfs_rm_device.cold+0xe8/0xed
       btrfs_ioctl+0x2a31/0x2e70
       __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
       do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

-> #2 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}:
       lo_write_bvec+0xc2/0x240 [loop]
       loop_process_work+0x238/0xd00 [loop]
       process_one_work+0x26b/0x560
       worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
       kthread+0x140/0x160
       ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
       process_one_work+0x245/0x560
       worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
       kthread+0x140/0x160
       ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30

-> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}:
       __lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
       lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
       flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
       drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
       destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
       __loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
       block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
       __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
       do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
  (wq_completion)loop0 --> &disk->open_mutex --> &lo->lo_mutex

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
                               lock(&disk->open_mutex);
                               lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
  lock((wq_completion)loop0);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

1 lock held by losetup/11596:
 #0: ffff939655510c68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 11596 Comm: losetup Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2+ #406
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
 dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
 check_noncircular+0xcf/0xf0
 ? stack_trace_save+0x3b/0x50
 __lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
 lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
 ? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
 ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x47/0x220
 flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
 ? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
 ? verify_cpu+0xf0/0x100
 drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
 destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
 __loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
 ? blkdev_ioctl+0x8d/0x2a0
 block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>