Skip to content

R
raspberrypi-kernel

openeuler / raspberrypi-kernel

通知 13
Star 1
Fork 0
R
raspberrypi-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 02 1月, 2010 3 次提交
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix reiserfs lock <-> i_mutex dependency inversion on xattr · 27026a05
      由 Frederic Weisbecker 提交于 
      While deleting the xattrs of an inode, we hold the reiserfs lock
and grab the inode->i_mutex of the targeted inode and the root
private xattr directory.

Later on, we may relax the reiserfs lock for various reasons, this
creates inverted dependencies.

We can remove the reiserfs lock -> i_mutex dependency by relaxing
the former before calling open_xa_dir(). This is fine because the
lookup and creation of xattr private directories done in
open_xa_dir() are covered by the targeted inode mutexes. And deeper
operations in the tree are still done under the write lock.

This fixes the following lockdep report:

=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.32-atom #173
-------------------------------------------------------
cp/3204 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c11432b9>] reiserfs_write_lock_once+0x29/0x50

but task is already holding lock:
 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#4/3){+.+.+.}, at: [<c1141e18>] open_xa_dir+0xd8/0x1b0

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#4/3){+.+.+.}:
       [<c105ea7f>] __lock_acquire+0x11ff/0x19e0
       [<c105f2c8>] lock_acquire+0x68/0x90
       [<c1401a2b>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5b/0x340
       [<c1141d83>] open_xa_dir+0x43/0x1b0
       [<c1142722>] reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x62/0x260
       [<c114299a>] reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x1a/0x60
       [<c111ea1f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x9f/0x150
       [<c10c9c32>] generic_delete_inode+0xa2/0x170
       [<c10c9d4f>] generic_drop_inode+0x4f/0x70
       [<c10c8b07>] iput+0x47/0x50
       [<c10c0965>] do_unlinkat+0xd5/0x160
       [<c10c0a00>] sys_unlink+0x10/0x20
       [<c1002ec4>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32

-> #0 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
       [<c105f176>] __lock_acquire+0x18f6/0x19e0
       [<c105f2c8>] lock_acquire+0x68/0x90
       [<c1401a2b>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5b/0x340
       [<c11432b9>] reiserfs_write_lock_once+0x29/0x50
       [<c1117012>] reiserfs_lookup+0x62/0x140
       [<c10bd85f>] __lookup_hash+0xef/0x110
       [<c10bf21d>] lookup_one_len+0x8d/0xc0
       [<c1141e2a>] open_xa_dir+0xea/0x1b0
       [<c1141fe5>] xattr_lookup+0x15/0x160
       [<c1142476>] reiserfs_xattr_get+0x56/0x2a0
       [<c1144042>] reiserfs_get_acl+0xa2/0x360
       [<c114461a>] reiserfs_cache_default_acl+0x3a/0x160
       [<c111789c>] reiserfs_mkdir+0x6c/0x2c0
       [<c10bea96>] vfs_mkdir+0xd6/0x180
       [<c10c0c10>] sys_mkdirat+0xc0/0xd0
       [<c10c0c40>] sys_mkdir+0x20/0x30
       [<c1002ec4>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32

other info that might help us debug this:

2 locks held by cp/3204:
 #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#4/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<c10bd8d6>] lookup_create+0x26/0xa0
 #1:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#4/3){+.+.+.}, at: [<c1141e18>] open_xa_dir+0xd8/0x1b0

stack backtrace:
Pid: 3204, comm: cp Not tainted 2.6.32-atom #173
Call Trace:
 [<c13ff993>] ? printk+0x18/0x1a
 [<c105d33a>] print_circular_bug+0xca/0xd0
 [<c105f176>] __lock_acquire+0x18f6/0x19e0
 [<c105d3aa>] ? check_usage+0x6a/0x460
 [<c105f2c8>] lock_acquire+0x68/0x90
 [<c11432b9>] ? reiserfs_write_lock_once+0x29/0x50
 [<c11432b9>] ? reiserfs_write_lock_once+0x29/0x50
 [<c1401a2b>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5b/0x340
 [<c11432b9>] ? reiserfs_write_lock_once+0x29/0x50
 [<c11432b9>] reiserfs_write_lock_once+0x29/0x50
 [<c1117012>] reiserfs_lookup+0x62/0x140
 [<c105ccca>] ? debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x8a/0x140
 [<c105cbe4>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x124/0x170
 [<c10bd85f>] __lookup_hash+0xef/0x110
 [<c10bf21d>] lookup_one_len+0x8d/0xc0
 [<c1141e2a>] open_xa_dir+0xea/0x1b0
 [<c1141fe5>] xattr_lookup+0x15/0x160
 [<c1142476>] reiserfs_xattr_get+0x56/0x2a0
 [<c1144042>] reiserfs_get_acl+0xa2/0x360
 [<c10ca2e7>] ? new_inode+0x27/0xa0
 [<c114461a>] reiserfs_cache_default_acl+0x3a/0x160
 [<c1402eb7>] ? _spin_unlock+0x27/0x40
 [<c111789c>] reiserfs_mkdir+0x6c/0x2c0
 [<c10c7cb8>] ? __d_lookup+0x108/0x190
 [<c105c932>] ? mark_held_locks+0x62/0x80
 [<c1401c8d>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x2bd/0x340
 [<c10bd17a>] ? generic_permission+0x1a/0xa0
 [<c11788fe>] ? security_inode_permission+0x1e/0x20
 [<c10bea96>] vfs_mkdir+0xd6/0x180
 [<c10c0c10>] sys_mkdirat+0xc0/0xd0
 [<c10505c6>] ? up_read+0x16/0x30
 [<c1002fd8>] ? restore_all_notrace+0x0/0x18
 [<c10c0c40>] sys_mkdir+0x20/0x30
 [<c1002ec4>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32

v2: Don't drop reiserfs_mutex_lock_nested_safe() as we'll still
    need it later
Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Tested-by: NChristian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de>
Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      27026a05
    • F
      reiserfs: Warn on lock relax if taken recursively · c4a62ca3
      由 Frederic Weisbecker 提交于 
      When we relax the reiserfs lock to avoid creating unwanted
dependencies against others locks while grabbing these,
we want to ensure it has not been taken recursively, otherwise
the lock won't be really relaxed. Only its depth will be decreased.
The unwanted dependency would then actually happen.

To prevent from that, add a reiserfs_lock_check_recursive() call
in the places that need it.
Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      c4a62ca3
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix reiserfs lock <-> i_xattr_sem dependency inversion · 0719d343
      由 Frederic Weisbecker 提交于 
      i_xattr_sem depends on the reiserfs lock. But after we grab
i_xattr_sem, we may relax/relock the reiserfs lock while waiting
on a freezed filesystem, creating a dependency inversion between
the two locks.

In order to avoid the i_xattr_sem -> reiserfs lock dependency, let's
create a reiserfs_down_read_safe() that acts like
reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe(): relax the reiserfs lock while grabbing
another lock to avoid undesired dependencies induced by the
heivyweight reiserfs lock.

This fixes the following warning:

[  990.005931] =======================================================
[  990.012373] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[  990.013233] 2.6.33-rc1 #1
[  990.013233] -------------------------------------------------------
[  990.013233] dbench/1891 is trying to acquire lock:
[  990.013233]  (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81159505>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233] but task is already holding lock:
[  990.013233]  (&REISERFS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8115899a>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233] -> #1 (&REISERFS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem){+.+.+.}:
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81063afc>] __lock_acquire+0xf9c/0x1560
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8106414f>] lock_acquire+0x8f/0xb0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff814ac194>] down_write+0x44/0x80
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115899a>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81158e30>] reiserfs_xattr_set+0xb0/0x150
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115a6aa>] user_set+0x8a/0x90
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115901a>] reiserfs_setxattr+0xaa/0xb0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e2596>] __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x36/0xa0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e26bc>] vfs_setxattr+0xbc/0xc0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e2780>] setxattr+0xc0/0x150
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e289d>] sys_fsetxattr+0x8d/0xa0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233] -> #0 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81063e30>] __lock_acquire+0x12d0/0x1560
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8106414f>] lock_acquire+0x8f/0xb0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff814aba77>] __mutex_lock_common+0x47/0x3b0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff814abebe>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81159505>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff811340e5>] reiserfs_prepare_write+0x45/0x180
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81158bb6>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x2a6/0x470
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81158e30>] reiserfs_xattr_set+0xb0/0x150
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115a6aa>] user_set+0x8a/0x90
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115901a>] reiserfs_setxattr+0xaa/0xb0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e2596>] __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x36/0xa0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e26bc>] vfs_setxattr+0xbc/0xc0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e2780>] setxattr+0xc0/0x150
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e289d>] sys_fsetxattr+0x8d/0xa0
[  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233] other info that might help us debug this:
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233] 2 locks held by dbench/1891:
[  990.013233]  #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#12){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810e2678>] vfs_setxattr+0x78/0xc0
[  990.013233]  #1:  (&REISERFS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8115899a>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
[  990.013233]
[  990.013233] stack backtrace:
[  990.013233] Pid: 1891, comm: dbench Not tainted 2.6.33-rc1 #1
[  990.013233] Call Trace:
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81061639>] print_circular_bug+0xe9/0xf0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81063e30>] __lock_acquire+0x12d0/0x1560
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8115899a>] ? reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8106414f>] lock_acquire+0x8f/0xb0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81159505>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8115899a>] ? reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff814aba77>] __mutex_lock_common+0x47/0x3b0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81159505>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81159505>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81062592>] ? mark_held_locks+0x72/0xa0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff814ab81d>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xbd/0x140
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810628ad>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x14d/0x1a0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff814abebe>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81159505>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff811340e5>] reiserfs_prepare_write+0x45/0x180
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81158bb6>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x2a6/0x470
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81158e30>] reiserfs_xattr_set+0xb0/0x150
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff814abcb4>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x284/0x3b0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8115a6aa>] user_set+0x8a/0x90
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8115901a>] reiserfs_setxattr+0xaa/0xb0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810e2596>] __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x36/0xa0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810e26bc>] vfs_setxattr+0xbc/0xc0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810e2780>] setxattr+0xc0/0x150
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81056018>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xb8/0x100
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8105eded>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810560a3>] ? cpu_clock+0x43/0x50
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810c6820>] ? fget+0xb0/0x110
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810c6770>] ? fget+0x0/0x110
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81002ddc>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810e289d>] sys_fsetxattr+0x8d/0xa0
[  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
Reported-and-tested-by: NChristian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de>
Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      0719d343
  3. 30 12月, 2009 1 次提交
  5. 17 12月, 2009 1 次提交
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix reiserfs lock <-> inode mutex dependency inversion · 47376ceb
      由 Frederic Weisbecker 提交于 
      The reiserfs lock -> inode mutex dependency gets inverted when we
relax the lock while walking to the tree.

To fix this, use a specialized version of reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe
that takes care of mutex subclasses. Then we can grab the inode
mutex with I_MUTEX_XATTR subclass without any reiserfs lock
dependency.

This fixes the following report:

[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.32-06793-gf4054253-dirty #2
-------------------------------------------------------
mv/18566 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c1110708>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28=
/0x40

but task is already holding lock:
 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/3){+.+.+.}, at: [<c111033c>]
reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x10c/0x380

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/3){+.+.+.}:
       [<c104f723>] validate_chain+0xa23/0xf70
       [<c1050155>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
       [<c105075a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
       [<c134c76f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
       [<c11102b4>] reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x84/0x380
       [<c1110615>] reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x15/0x50
       [<c10ef57f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x8f/0x140
       [<c10a565c>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
       [<c10a574d>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
       [<c10a4667>] iput+0x47/0x50
       [<c109cc0b>] do_unlinkat+0xdb/0x160
       [<c109cca0>] sys_unlink+0x10/0x20
       [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36

-> #0 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
       [<c104fc68>] validate_chain+0xf68/0xf70
       [<c1050155>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
       [<c105075a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
       [<c134c76f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
       [<c1110708>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c1103d6b>] search_by_key+0x1f7b/0x21b0
       [<c10e73ef>] search_by_entry_key+0x1f/0x3b0
       [<c10e77f7>] reiserfs_find_entry+0x77/0x400
       [<c10e81e5>] reiserfs_lookup+0x85/0x130
       [<c109a144>] __lookup_hash+0xb4/0x110
       [<c109b763>] lookup_one_len+0xb3/0x100
       [<c1110350>] reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x120/0x380
       [<c1110615>] reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x15/0x50
       [<c10ef57f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x8f/0x140
       [<c10a565c>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
       [<c10a574d>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
       [<c10a4667>] iput+0x47/0x50
       [<c10a1c4f>] dentry_iput+0x6f/0xf0
       [<c10a1d74>] d_kill+0x24/0x50
       [<c10a396b>] dput+0x5b/0x120
       [<c109ca89>] sys_renameat+0x1b9/0x230
       [<c109cb28>] sys_rename+0x28/0x30
       [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36

other info that might help us debug this:

2 locks held by mv/18566:
 #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<c109b6ac>]
lock_rename+0xcc/0xd0
 #1:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/3){+.+.+.}, at: [<c111033c>]
reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x10c/0x380

stack backtrace:
Pid: 18566, comm: mv Tainted: G         C 2.6.32-06793-gf4054253-dirty #2
Call Trace:
 [<c134b252>] ? printk+0x18/0x1e
 [<c104e790>] print_circular_bug+0xc0/0xd0
 [<c104fc68>] validate_chain+0xf68/0xf70
 [<c104c8cb>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
 [<c1050155>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
 [<c105075a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
 [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
 [<c134c76f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
 [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
 [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
 [<c134b60a>] ? schedule+0x27a/0x440
 [<c1110708>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
 [<c1103d6b>] search_by_key+0x1f7b/0x21b0
 [<c1050176>] ? __lock_acquire+0x506/0xa70
 [<c1051267>] ? lock_release_non_nested+0x1e7/0x340
 [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
 [<c104e354>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x124/0x170
 [<c104e3ab>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
 [<c1042a55>] ? T.316+0x15/0x1a0
 [<c1042d2d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x9d/0x100
 [<c10e73ef>] search_by_entry_key+0x1f/0x3b0
 [<c134bf2a>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x9a/0x120
 [<c104e354>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x124/0x170
 [<c10e77f7>] reiserfs_find_entry+0x77/0x400
 [<c10e81e5>] reiserfs_lookup+0x85/0x130
 [<c1042d2d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x9d/0x100
 [<c109a144>] __lookup_hash+0xb4/0x110
 [<c109b763>] lookup_one_len+0xb3/0x100
 [<c1110350>] reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x120/0x380
 [<c110ffe0>] ? delete_one_xattr+0x0/0x1c0
 [<c1003342>] ? math_error+0x22/0x150
 [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
 [<c1110615>] reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x15/0x50
 [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
 [<c10ef57f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x8f/0x140
 [<c10a561f>] ? generic_delete_inode+0x5f/0x150
 [<c10ef4f0>] ? reiserfs_delete_inode+0x0/0x140
 [<c10a565c>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
 [<c10a574d>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
 [<c10a4667>] iput+0x47/0x50
 [<c10a1c4f>] dentry_iput+0x6f/0xf0
 [<c10a1d74>] d_kill+0x24/0x50
 [<c10a396b>] dput+0x5b/0x120
 [<c109ca89>] sys_renameat+0x1b9/0x230
 [<c1042d2d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x9d/0x100
 [<c104c8cb>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
 [<c1042dde>] ? cpu_clock+0x4e/0x60
 [<c1350825>] ? do_page_fault+0x155/0x370
 [<c1041816>] ? up_read+0x16/0x30
 [<c1350825>] ? do_page_fault+0x155/0x370
 [<c109cb28>] sys_rename+0x28/0x30
 [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
Reported-by: NAlexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      47376ceb
  7. 14 12月, 2009 2 次提交
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix reiserfs lock and journal lock inversion dependency · cb1c2e51
      由 Frederic Weisbecker 提交于 
      When we were using the bkl, we didn't care about dependencies against
other locks, but the mutex conversion created new ones, which is why
we have reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe(), which unlocks the reiserfs lock
before acquiring another mutex.

But this trick actually fails if we have acquired the reiserfs lock
recursively, as we try to unlock it to acquire the new mutex without
inverted dependency, but we eventually only decrease its depth.

This happens in the case of a nested inode creation/deletion.
Say we have no space left on the device, we create an inode
and tak the lock but fail to create its entry, then we release the
inode using iput(), which calls reiserfs_delete_inode() that takes
the reiserfs lock recursively. The path eventually ends up in
journal_begin() where we try to take the journal safely but we
fail because of the reiserfs lock recursion:

[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.32-06486-g053fe57a #2
-------------------------------------------------------
vi/23454 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&journal->j_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c110dac4>] do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0

but task is already holding lock:
 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c11106a8>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
       [<c104f8f3>] validate_chain+0xa23/0xf70
       [<c1050325>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
       [<c105092a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
       [<c134c78f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
       [<c11106a8>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c110dacb>] do_journal_begin_r+0x6b/0x2f0
       [<c110ddcf>] journal_begin+0x7f/0x120
       [<c10f76c2>] reiserfs_remount+0x212/0x4d0
       [<c1093997>] do_remount_sb+0x67/0x140
       [<c10a9ca6>] do_mount+0x436/0x6b0
       [<c10a9f86>] sys_mount+0x66/0xa0
       [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36

-> #0 (&journal->j_mutex){+.+...}:
       [<c104fe38>] validate_chain+0xf68/0xf70
       [<c1050325>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
       [<c105092a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
       [<c134c78f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
       [<c110dac4>] do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
       [<c110ddcf>] journal_begin+0x7f/0x120
       [<c10ef52f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x9f/0x140
       [<c10a55fc>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
       [<c10a56ed>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
       [<c10a4607>] iput+0x47/0x50
       [<c10e915c>] reiserfs_create+0x16c/0x1c0
       [<c109a9c1>] vfs_create+0xc1/0x130
       [<c109dbec>] do_filp_open+0x81c/0x920
       [<c109004f>] do_sys_open+0x4f/0x110
       [<c1090179>] sys_open+0x29/0x40
       [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36

other info that might help us debug this:

2 locks held by vi/23454:
 #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5){+.+.+.}, at: [<c109d64e>]
do_filp_open+0x27e/0x920
 #1:  (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c11106a8>]
reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40

stack backtrace:
Pid: 23454, comm: vi Not tainted 2.6.32-06486-g053fe57a #2
Call Trace:
 [<c134b202>] ? printk+0x18/0x1e
 [<c104e960>] print_circular_bug+0xc0/0xd0
 [<c104fe38>] validate_chain+0xf68/0xf70
 [<c104ca9b>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
 [<c1050325>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
 [<c105092a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
 [<c110dac4>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
 [<c134c78f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
 [<c110dac4>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
 [<c110dac4>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
 [<c110ff80>] ? delete_one_xattr+0x0/0x1c0
 [<c110dac4>] do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
 [<c110ddcf>] journal_begin+0x7f/0x120
 [<c11105b5>] ? reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x15/0x50
 [<c10ef52f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x9f/0x140
 [<c10a55bf>] ? generic_delete_inode+0x5f/0x150
 [<c10ef490>] ? reiserfs_delete_inode+0x0/0x140
 [<c10a55fc>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
 [<c10a56ed>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
 [<c10a4607>] iput+0x47/0x50
 [<c10e915c>] reiserfs_create+0x16c/0x1c0
 [<c1099a5d>] ? inode_permission+0x7d/0xa0
 [<c109a9c1>] vfs_create+0xc1/0x130
 [<c10e8ff0>] ? reiserfs_create+0x0/0x1c0
 [<c109dbec>] do_filp_open+0x81c/0x920
 [<c104ca9b>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
 [<c134dc0d>] ? _spin_unlock+0x1d/0x20
 [<c10a6eea>] ? alloc_fd+0xba/0xf0
 [<c109004f>] do_sys_open+0x4f/0x110
 [<c1090179>] sys_open+0x29/0x40
 [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36

To fix this, use reiserfs_lock_once() from reiserfs_delete_inode()
which prevents from adding reiserfs lock recursion.
Reported-by: NAlexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      cb1c2e51
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix possible recursive lock · 500f5a0b
      由 Frederic Weisbecker 提交于 
      While allocating the bitmap using vmalloc, we hold the reiserfs lock,
which makes lockdep later reporting a possible deadlock as we may
swap out pages to allocate memory and then take the reiserfs lock
recursively:

inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
kswapd0/312 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.?.}, at: [<c11108a8>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
{RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
  [<c104e1c2>] mark_held_locks+0x62/0x90
  [<c104e28a>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x9a/0xc0
  [<c108e396>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x26/0xf0
  [<c10850ec>] __get_vm_area_node+0x6c/0xf0
  [<c10857de>] __vmalloc_node+0x7e/0xa0
  [<c108597b>] vmalloc+0x2b/0x30
  [<c10e00b9>] reiserfs_init_bitmap_cache+0x39/0x70
  [<c10f8178>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x2e8/0xb90
  [<c1094345>] get_sb_bdev+0x145/0x180
  [<c10f5a11>] get_super_block+0x21/0x30
  [<c10931f0>] vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0xd0
  [<c10932d9>] do_kern_mount+0x39/0xd0
  [<c10a9857>] do_mount+0x2c7/0x6b0
  [<c10a9ca6>] sys_mount+0x66/0xa0
  [<c161589b>] mount_block_root+0xc4/0x245
  [<c1615a75>] mount_root+0x59/0x5f
  [<c1615b8c>] prepare_namespace+0x111/0x14b
  [<c1615269>] kernel_init+0xcf/0xdb
  [<c10031fb>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x1c

This is actually fine for two reasons: we call vmalloc at mount time
then it's not in the swapping out path. Also the reiserfs lock can be
acquired recursively, but since its implementation depends on a mutex,
it's hard and not necessary worth it to teach that to lockdep.

The lock is useless at mount time anyway, at least until we replay the
journal. But let's remove it from this path later as this needs
more thinking and is a sensible change.

For now we can just relax the lock around vmalloc,
Reported-by: NAlexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      500f5a0b
  9. 07 12月, 2009 1 次提交
    • F
      Merge commit 'v2.6.32' into reiserfs/kill-bkl · 6548698f
      由 Frederic Weisbecker 提交于 
      Merge-reason: The tree was based 2.6.31. It's better to be up to date
with 2.6.32. Although no conflicting changes were made in between,
it gives benchmarking results closer to the lastest kernel behaviour.
      6548698f
  11. 03 12月, 2009 15 次提交
  13. 02 12月, 2009 17 次提交