* [CHECKER] possible deadlock in 2.6.8.1 lockd code
@ 2004-09-08 2:57 Dawson Engler
2004-09-08 3:28 ` Trond Myklebust
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dawson Engler @ 2004-09-08 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: developers
Hi All,
below is a possible deadlock in the linux-2.6.8.1 lockd code found by a
static deadlock checker I'm writing. Let me know if it looks valid and/or
whether the output is too cryptic. (Note, the locking dependencies go
across a bunch of function calls, so the paths may be infeasible.)
Thanks,
Dawson
lock_kernel <<===>> nlm_file_sema
thread 1: lock_kernel ==>> nlm_file_sema
3 traces
trace 1: ncalls=3, ncond=2
fs/lockd/svc.c:lockd
94: lockd(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
95: {
96: struct svc_serv *serv = rqstp->rq_server;
97: int err = 0;
98: unsigned long grace_period_expire;
...
102: * be holding a reference to this module, so it
103: * is safe to just claim another reference
104: */
105: __module_get(THIS_MODULE);
===> 106: lock_kernel();
...
135: while ((nlmsvc_users || !signalled()) && nlmsvc_pid == current->pid) {
137:
138: if (signalled()) {
139: flush_signals(current);
140: if (nlmsvc_ops) {
===> 141: nlmsvc_invalidate_all();
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlmsvc_invalidate_all
300: nlmsvc_invalidate_all(void)
301: {
302: struct nlm_host *host;
303: while ((host = nlm_find_client()) != NULL) {
===> 304: nlmsvc_free_host_resources(host);
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlmsvc_free_host_resources
286: nlmsvc_free_host_resources(struct nlm_host *host)
287: {
288: dprintk("lockd: nlmsvc_free_host_resources\n");
289:
===> 290: if (nlm_traverse_files(host, NLM_ACT_UNLOCK))
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_traverse_files
213: nlm_traverse_files(struct nlm_host *host, int action)
214: {
215: struct nlm_file *file, **fp;
216: int i;
217:
===> 218: down(&nlm_file_sema);
trace 2: ncalls=3, ncond=2
fs/lockd/svc.c:lockd
94: lockd(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
95: {
96: struct svc_serv *serv = rqstp->rq_server;
97: int err = 0;
98: unsigned long grace_period_expire;
...
102: * be holding a reference to this module, so it
103: * is safe to just claim another reference
104: */
105: __module_get(THIS_MODULE);
===> 106: lock_kernel();
...
174: svc_process(serv, rqstp);
175:
176: }
177:
178: /*
...
180: * shutting down the hosts and clearing the slot.
181: */
182: if (!nlmsvc_pid || current->pid == nlmsvc_pid) {
183: if (nlmsvc_ops)
===> 184: nlmsvc_invalidate_all();
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlmsvc_invalidate_all
300: nlmsvc_invalidate_all(void)
301: {
302: struct nlm_host *host;
303: while ((host = nlm_find_client()) != NULL) {
===> 304: nlmsvc_free_host_resources(host);
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlmsvc_free_host_resources
286: nlmsvc_free_host_resources(struct nlm_host *host)
287: {
288: dprintk("lockd: nlmsvc_free_host_resources\n");
289:
===> 290: if (nlm_traverse_files(host, NLM_ACT_UNLOCK))
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_traverse_files
213: nlm_traverse_files(struct nlm_host *host, int action)
214: {
215: struct nlm_file *file, **fp;
216: int i;
217:
===> 218: down(&nlm_file_sema);
--------------------------------------------------------------
thread 2: nlm_file_sema ==>> lock_kernel
6 traces
trace 1: ncalls=4, ncond=3
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_release_file
254: nlm_release_file(struct nlm_file *file)
255: {
256: dprintk("lockd: nlm_release_file(%p, ct = %d)\n",
257: file, file->f_count);
258:
259: /* Lock file table */
===> 260: down(&nlm_file_sema);
261:
262: /* If there are no more locks etc, delete the file */
263: if(--file->f_count == 0) {
===> 264: if(!nlm_inspect_file(NULL, file, NLM_ACT_CHECK))
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_inspect_file
195: nlm_inspect_file(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file, int action)
196: {
197: if (action == NLM_ACT_CHECK) {
198: /* Fast path for mark and sweep garbage collection */
199: if (file->f_count || file->f_blocks || file->f_shares)
200: return 1;
201: } else {
===> 202: if (nlmsvc_traverse_blocks(host, file, action)
fs/lockd/svclock.c:nlmsvc_traverse_blocks
271: nlmsvc_traverse_blocks(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file, int action)
272: {
273: struct nlm_block *block, *next;
274:
275: down(&file->f_sema);
...
278: if (action == NLM_ACT_MARK)
279: block->b_host->h_inuse = 1;
280: else if (action == NLM_ACT_UNLOCK) {
281: if (host == NULL || host == block->b_host)
===> 282: nlmsvc_delete_block(block, 1);
fs/lockd/svclock.c:nlmsvc_delete_block
231: nlmsvc_delete_block(struct nlm_block *block, int unlock)
232: {
233: struct file_lock *fl = &block->b_call.a_args.lock.fl;
234: struct nlm_file *file = block->b_file;
235: struct nlm_block **bp;
...
237: dprintk("lockd: deleting block %p...\n", block);
238:
239: /* Remove block from list */
240: nlmsvc_remove_block(block);
===> 241: posix_unblock_lock(&file->f_file, fl);
fs/locks.c:posix_unblock_lock
1756: posix_unblock_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *waiter)
1757: {
1758: /*
1759: * A remote machine may cancel the lock request after it's been
1760: * granted locally. If that happens, we need to delete the lock.
1761: */
===> 1762: lock_kernel();
trace 3: ncalls=4, ncond=4
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_release_file
254: nlm_release_file(struct nlm_file *file)
255: {
256: dprintk("lockd: nlm_release_file(%p, ct = %d)\n",
257: file, file->f_count);
258:
259: /* Lock file table */
===> 260: down(&nlm_file_sema);
261:
262: /* If there are no more locks etc, delete the file */
263: if(--file->f_count == 0) {
===> 264: if(!nlm_inspect_file(NULL, file, NLM_ACT_CHECK))
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_inspect_file
195: nlm_inspect_file(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file, int action)
196: {
197: if (action == NLM_ACT_CHECK) {
198: /* Fast path for mark and sweep garbage collection */
199: if (file->f_count || file->f_blocks || file->f_shares)
...
202: if (nlmsvc_traverse_blocks(host, file, action)
203: || nlmsvc_traverse_shares(host, file, action))
204: return 1;
205: }
===> 206: return nlm_traverse_locks(host, file, action);
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_traverse_locks
151: nlm_traverse_locks(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file, int action)
152: {
153: struct inode *inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
154: struct file_lock *fl;
155: struct nlm_host *lockhost;
...
175:
176: lock.fl_type = F_UNLCK;
177: lock.fl_start = 0;
178: lock.fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
===> 179: if (posix_lock_file(&file->f_file, &lock) < 0) {
fs/locks.c:posix_lock_file
909: int posix_lock_file(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
910: {
===> 911: return __posix_lock_file(filp->f_dentry->d_inode, fl);
fs/locks.c:__posix_lock_file
723: static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request)
724: {
725: struct file_lock *fl;
726: struct file_lock *new_fl, *new_fl2;
727: struct file_lock *left = NULL;
...
735: */
736: new_fl = locks_alloc_lock();
737: new_fl2 = locks_alloc_lock();
738:
===> 739: lock_kernel();
trace 4: ncalls=4, ncond=4
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_traverse_files
213: nlm_traverse_files(struct nlm_host *host, int action)
214: {
215: struct nlm_file *file, **fp;
216: int i;
217:
===> 218: down(&nlm_file_sema);
219: for (i = 0; i < FILE_NRHASH; i++) {
220: fp = nlm_files + i;
221: while ((file = *fp) != NULL) {
222: /* Traverse locks, blocks and shares of this file
223: * and update file->f_locks count */
===> 224: if (nlm_inspect_file(host, file, action)) {
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_inspect_file
195: nlm_inspect_file(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file, int action)
196: {
197: if (action == NLM_ACT_CHECK) {
198: /* Fast path for mark and sweep garbage collection */
199: if (file->f_count || file->f_blocks || file->f_shares)
...
202: if (nlmsvc_traverse_blocks(host, file, action)
203: || nlmsvc_traverse_shares(host, file, action))
204: return 1;
205: }
===> 206: return nlm_traverse_locks(host, file, action);
fs/lockd/svcsubs.c:nlm_traverse_locks
151: nlm_traverse_locks(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file, int action)
152: {
153: struct inode *inode = nlmsvc_file_inode(file);
154: struct file_lock *fl;
155: struct nlm_host *lockhost;
...
175:
176: lock.fl_type = F_UNLCK;
177: lock.fl_start = 0;
178: lock.fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
===> 179: if (posix_lock_file(&file->f_file, &lock) < 0) {
fs/locks.c:posix_lock_file
909: int posix_lock_file(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
910: {
===> 911: return __posix_lock_file(filp->f_dentry->d_inode, fl);
fs/locks.c:__posix_lock_file
723: static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request)
724: {
725: struct file_lock *fl;
726: struct file_lock *new_fl, *new_fl2;
727: struct file_lock *left = NULL;
...
735: */
736: new_fl = locks_alloc_lock();
737: new_fl2 = locks_alloc_lock();
738:
===> 739: lock_kernel();
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [CHECKER] possible deadlock in 2.6.8.1 lockd code
2004-09-08 2:57 [CHECKER] possible deadlock in 2.6.8.1 lockd code Dawson Engler
@ 2004-09-08 3:28 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-09-08 3:34 ` viro
2004-09-08 3:45 ` Greg Banks
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2004-09-08 3:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dawson Engler; +Cc: linux-kernel, developers
På ty , 07/09/2004 klokka 22:57, skreiv Dawson Engler:
> Hi All,
>
> below is a possible deadlock in the linux-2.6.8.1 lockd code found by a
> static deadlock checker I'm writing. Let me know if it looks valid and/or
> whether the output is too cryptic. (Note, the locking dependencies go
> across a bunch of function calls, so the paths may be infeasible.)
Are you proposing to help us multi-thread lockd? 8-)
Cheers,
Trond
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [CHECKER] possible deadlock in 2.6.8.1 lockd code
2004-09-08 2:57 [CHECKER] possible deadlock in 2.6.8.1 lockd code Dawson Engler
2004-09-08 3:28 ` Trond Myklebust
@ 2004-09-08 3:34 ` viro
2004-09-08 3:45 ` Greg Banks
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: viro @ 2004-09-08 3:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dawson Engler; +Cc: linux-kernel, developers
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:57:28PM -0700, Dawson Engler wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> below is a possible deadlock in the linux-2.6.8.1 lockd code found by a
> static deadlock checker I'm writing. Let me know if it looks valid and/or
> whether the output is too cryptic. (Note, the locking dependencies go
> across a bunch of function calls, so the paths may be infeasible.)
It's a BS - down() and lock_kernel() do not form a mutual deadlock.
Consider minimal deadlocked state. By definition, we can exclude tasks
that didn't manage to get at least one lock (we would still have a deadlocked
set without them and we have chosen a minimal set). Consider the task
that holds semaphore; since we have a deadlock, it would have to be spinning
in lock_kernel(). That requires another task in our set to be holding BKL _and_
having the timeslice, since BKL is dropped when task loses CPU. But such
task would not be blocked on anything - it can't be blocked on semaphore
since it is runnable and it can't be blocked on BKL since it's already holding
it. In other words, it could not be a part of our deadlock. QED.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [CHECKER] possible deadlock in 2.6.8.1 lockd code
2004-09-08 2:57 [CHECKER] possible deadlock in 2.6.8.1 lockd code Dawson Engler
2004-09-08 3:28 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-09-08 3:34 ` viro
@ 2004-09-08 3:45 ` Greg Banks
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Greg Banks @ 2004-09-08 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dawson Engler; +Cc: linux-kernel, developers
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 12:57, Dawson Engler wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> below is a possible deadlock in the linux-2.6.8.1 lockd code found by a
> static deadlock checker I'm writing. Let me know if it looks valid and/or
> whether the output is too cryptic. (Note, the locking dependencies go
> across a bunch of function calls, so the paths may be infeasible.)
Nick's comment applies here. Furthermore, there is at most one lockd
thread so once again there is no thread B to deadlock with.
Greg.
--
Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group.
I don't speak for SGI.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-08 3:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-08 2:57 [CHECKER] possible deadlock in 2.6.8.1 lockd code Dawson Engler
2004-09-08 3:28 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-09-08 3:34 ` viro
2004-09-08 3:45 ` Greg Banks
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®