* [PATCH 1/2] reiserfs: Fix dependency inversion between inode and reiserfs mutexes
@ 2010-09-27 13:14 Frederic Weisbecker
2010-09-27 13:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] reiserfs: Fix unwanted reiserfs lock recursion Frederic Weisbecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2010-09-27 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: LKML, Frederic Weisbecker, Jarek Poplawski, All since 2.6.32
The reiserfs mutex already depends on the inode mutex, so we can't
lock the inode mutex in reiserfs_unpack() without using the safe
locking API, because reiserfs_unpack() is always called with
the reiserfs mutex locked.
This fixes:
[ 92.766639] =======================================================
[ 92.767222] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 92.767222] 2.6.35c #13
[ 92.767222] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 92.767222] lilo/1606 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 92.767222] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.+.}, at: [<d0329450>] reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222] but task is already holding lock:
[ 92.767222] (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032a268>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222] -> #1 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 92.767222] [<c1056347>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
[ 92.767222] [<c12f083d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
[ 92.767222] [<c12f0c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
[ 92.767222] [<d032a268>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<d0329e9a>] reiserfs_lookup_privroot+0x2a/0x90 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<d0316b81>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x941/0xe60 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<c10b7d17>] get_sb_bdev+0x117/0x170
[ 92.767222] [<d0313e21>] get_super_block+0x21/0x30 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<c10b74ba>] vfs_kern_mount+0x6a/0x1b0
[ 92.767222] [<c10b7659>] do_kern_mount+0x39/0xe0
[ 92.767222] [<c10cebe0>] do_mount+0x340/0x790
[ 92.767222] [<c10cf0b4>] sys_mount+0x84/0xb0
[ 92.767222] [<c12f25cd>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.+.}:
[ 92.767222] [<c1056186>] __lock_acquire+0x1026/0x1180
[ 92.767222] [<c1056347>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
[ 92.767222] [<c12f083d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
[ 92.767222] [<c12f0c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
[ 92.767222] [<d0329450>] reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<d0329772>] reiserfs_ioctl+0x272/0x320 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<c10c3228>] vfs_ioctl+0x28/0xa0
[ 92.767222] [<c10c3c5d>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x5c0
[ 92.767222] [<c10c3f53>] sys_ioctl+0x63/0x70
[ 92.767222] [<c12f25cd>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222] 1 lock held by lilo/1606:
[ 92.767222] #0: (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032a268>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222]
[ 92.767222] stack backtrace:
[ 92.767222] Pid: 1606, comm: lilo Not tainted 2.6.35c #13
[ 92.767222] Call Trace:
[ 92.767222] [<c12ef64a>] ? printk+0x18/0x1e
[ 92.767222] [<c1054212>] print_circular_bug+0xd2/0xe0
[ 92.767222] [<c1056186>] __lock_acquire+0x1026/0x1180
[ 92.767222] [<c1089489>] ? __generic_file_aio_write+0x1c9/0x550
[ 92.767222] [<c1056347>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
[ 92.767222] [<d0329450>] ? reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<c12f083d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
[ 92.767222] [<d0329450>] ? reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<c12f0b08>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x318/0x410
[ 92.767222] [<d032a268>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<c12f0c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
[ 92.767222] [<d0329450>] ? reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<d0329450>] reiserfs_unpack+0x60/0x110 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<c12f0c58>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
[ 92.767222] [<d0329772>] reiserfs_ioctl+0x272/0x320 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<d0329500>] ? reiserfs_ioctl+0x0/0x320 [reiserfs]
[ 92.767222] [<c10c3228>] vfs_ioctl+0x28/0xa0
[ 92.767222] [<c10c3c5d>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x5c0
[ 92.767222] [<c109a428>] ? might_fault+0x88/0x90
[ 92.767222] [<c109a3e2>] ? might_fault+0x42/0x90
[ 92.767222] [<c10b6638>] ? fget_light+0xf8/0x2f0
[ 92.767222] [<c10c3f53>] sys_ioctl+0x63/0x70
[ 92.767222] [<c12f25cd>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
Reported-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: All since 2.6.32 <stable@kernel.org>
---
fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c b/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
index f53505d..679d502 100644
--- a/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ int reiserfs_unpack(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
/* we need to make sure nobody is changing the file size beneath
** us
*/
- mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
+ reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe(&inode->i_mutex, inode->i_sb);
reiserfs_write_lock(inode->i_sb);
write_from = inode->i_size & (blocksize - 1);
--
1.6.2.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] reiserfs: Fix unwanted reiserfs lock recursion
2010-09-27 13:14 [PATCH 1/2] reiserfs: Fix dependency inversion between inode and reiserfs mutexes Frederic Weisbecker
@ 2010-09-27 13:14 ` Frederic Weisbecker
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2010-09-27 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: LKML, Frederic Weisbecker, Jarek Poplawski, All since 2.6.32
Prevent from recursively locking the reiserfs lock in
reiserfs_unpack() because we may call journal_begin()
that requires the lock to be taken only once, otherwise
it won't be able to release the lock while taking other
mutexes, ending up in inverted dependencies between
the journal mutex and the reiserfs lock for example.
This fixes:
[ 67.110273] =======================================================
[ 67.110313] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 67.110313] 2.6.35.4.4a #3
[ 67.110313] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 67.110313] lilo/1620 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 67.110313] (&journal->j_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<d0325bff>] do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313] but task is already holding lock:
[ 67.110313] (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032a278>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313] -> #1 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 67.110313] [<c10562b7>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
[ 67.110313] [<c12facad>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
[ 67.110313] [<c12fb0c8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
[ 67.110313] [<d032a278>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0325c06>] do_journal_begin_r+0x86/0x340 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0325f77>] journal_begin+0x77/0x140 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0315be4>] reiserfs_remount+0x224/0x530 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<c10b6a20>] do_remount_sb+0x60/0x110
[ 67.110313] [<c10cee25>] do_mount+0x625/0x790
[ 67.110313] [<c10cf014>] sys_mount+0x84/0xb0
[ 67.110313] [<c12fca3d>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313] -> #0 (&journal->j_mutex){+.+...}:
[ 67.110313] [<c10560f6>] __lock_acquire+0x1026/0x1180
[ 67.110313] [<c10562b7>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
[ 67.110313] [<c12facad>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
[ 67.110313] [<c12fb0c8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
[ 67.110313] [<d0325bff>] do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0325f77>] journal_begin+0x77/0x140 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0326271>] reiserfs_persistent_transaction+0x41/0x90 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d030d06c>] reiserfs_get_block+0x22c/0x1530 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<c10db9db>] __block_prepare_write+0x1bb/0x3a0
[ 67.110313] [<c10dbbe6>] block_prepare_write+0x26/0x40
[ 67.110313] [<d030b738>] reiserfs_prepare_write+0x88/0x170 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d03294d6>] reiserfs_unpack+0xe6/0x120 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0329782>] reiserfs_ioctl+0x272/0x320 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<c10c3188>] vfs_ioctl+0x28/0xa0
[ 67.110313] [<c10c3bbd>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x5c0
[ 67.110313] [<c10c3eb3>] sys_ioctl+0x63/0x70
[ 67.110313] [<c12fca3d>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313] 2 locks held by lilo/1620:
[ 67.110313] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032945a>] reiserfs_unpack+0x6a/0x120 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] #1: (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<d032a278>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313]
[ 67.110313] stack backtrace:
[ 67.110313] Pid: 1620, comm: lilo Not tainted 2.6.35.4.4a #3
[ 67.110313] Call Trace:
[ 67.110313] [<c12f9aba>] ? printk+0x18/0x1e
[ 67.110313] [<c1054182>] print_circular_bug+0xd2/0xe0
[ 67.110313] [<c10560f6>] __lock_acquire+0x1026/0x1180
[ 67.110313] [<c10562b7>] lock_acquire+0x67/0x80
[ 67.110313] [<d0325bff>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<c12facad>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4d/0x410
[ 67.110313] [<d0325bff>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<c1055275>] ? __lock_acquire+0x1a5/0x1180
[ 67.110313] [<c10897ae>] ? mempool_alloc_slab+0xe/0x10
[ 67.110313] [<c12fb0c8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x18/0x20
[ 67.110313] [<d0325bff>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0325bff>] do_journal_begin_r+0x7f/0x340 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<c1054bd2>] ? mark_held_locks+0x62/0x80
[ 67.110313] [<c10b163d>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x7d/0xb0
[ 67.110313] [<c1054e5c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x11c/0x160
[ 67.110313] [<d0325f77>] journal_begin+0x77/0x140 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0326262>] ? reiserfs_persistent_transaction+0x32/0x90 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0326271>] reiserfs_persistent_transaction+0x41/0x90 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d030d06c>] reiserfs_get_block+0x22c/0x1530 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<c1055275>] ? __lock_acquire+0x1a5/0x1180
[ 67.110313] [<c12fc672>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x22/0x50
[ 67.110313] [<c10b163d>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x7d/0xb0
[ 67.110313] [<c1054e5c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x11c/0x160
[ 67.110313] [<c102789b>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x7b/0xb0
[ 67.110313] [<c12fc457>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x27/0x40
[ 67.110313] [<c10db9db>] __block_prepare_write+0x1bb/0x3a0
[ 67.110313] [<c10dbbe6>] block_prepare_write+0x26/0x40
[ 67.110313] [<d030ce40>] ? reiserfs_get_block+0x0/0x1530 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d030b738>] reiserfs_prepare_write+0x88/0x170 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d030ce40>] ? reiserfs_get_block+0x0/0x1530 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d03294d6>] reiserfs_unpack+0xe6/0x120 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0329782>] reiserfs_ioctl+0x272/0x320 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<d0329510>] ? reiserfs_ioctl+0x0/0x320 [reiserfs]
[ 67.110313] [<c10c3188>] vfs_ioctl+0x28/0xa0
[ 67.110313] [<c10c3bbd>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x32d/0x5c0
[ 67.110313] [<c109a228>] ? might_fault+0x88/0x90
[ 67.110313] [<c109a1e2>] ? might_fault+0x42/0x90
[ 67.110313] [<c10b6588>] ? fget_light+0xf8/0x2f0
[ 67.110313] [<c10c3eb3>] sys_ioctl+0x63/0x70
[ 67.110313] [<c12fca3d>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[ 67.110313] [<c12f007b>] ? cookie_v6_check+0x44b/0x630
Reported-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: All since 2.6.32 <stable@kernel.org>
---
fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c | 5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c b/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
index 679d502..5cbb81e 100644
--- a/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/reiserfs/ioctl.c
@@ -170,6 +170,7 @@ int reiserfs_prepare_write(struct file *f, struct page *page,
int reiserfs_unpack(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
{
int retval = 0;
+ int depth;
int index;
struct page *page;
struct address_space *mapping;
@@ -189,7 +190,7 @@ int reiserfs_unpack(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
** us
*/
reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe(&inode->i_mutex, inode->i_sb);
- reiserfs_write_lock(inode->i_sb);
+ depth = reiserfs_write_lock_once(inode->i_sb);
write_from = inode->i_size & (blocksize - 1);
/* if we are on a block boundary, we are already unpacked. */
@@ -224,6 +225,6 @@ int reiserfs_unpack(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
out:
mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
- reiserfs_write_unlock(inode->i_sb);
+ reiserfs_write_unlock_once(inode->i_sb, depth);
return retval;
}
--
1.6.2.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-09-27 13:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-09-27 13:14 [PATCH 1/2] reiserfs: Fix dependency inversion between inode and reiserfs mutexes Frederic Weisbecker
2010-09-27 13:14 ` [PATCH 2/2] reiserfs: Fix unwanted reiserfs lock recursion Frederic Weisbecker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®