mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate  between locking links and non-links
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:39:12 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100218113912.4a3d36e9@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100217223848.GA31557@kroah.com>

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:38:48 -0800
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> writes:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 01:42:10PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > >> Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> writes:
> > >> 
> > >> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:09:33PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >>  I've just spent a while sorting out some lockdep complaints triggered
> > >> >>  by the recent addition of the "s_active" lockdep annotation in sysfs
> > >> >>   (commit 846f99749ab68bbc7f75c74fec305de675b1a1bf)
> > >> >> 
> > >> >>  Some of them are genuine and I have submitted a fix for those.
> > >> >>  Some are, I think, debatable and I get to that is a minute.  I've
> > >> >>  submitted a fix for them anyway.
> > >> >>  But some are to my mind clearly bogus and I'm hoping that can be
> > >> >>  fixed by the change below (or similar).
> > >> >>  The 'bogus' ones are triggered by writing to a sysfs attribute file
> > >> >>  for which the handler tries to delete a symlink from sysfs.
> > >> >>  This appears to be a recursion on s_active as s_active is held while
> > >> >>  the handler runs and is again needed to effect the delete.  However
> > >> >>  as the thing being deleted is a symlink, it is very clearly a
> > >> >>  different object to the thing triggering the delete, so there is no
> > >> >>  real loop.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >>  The following patch splits the lockdep context in two - one for
> > >> >>  symlink and one for everything else.  This removes the apparent loop.
> > >> >>  (An example report can be seen in
> > >> >>      http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15142).
> > >> >> 
> > >> >>  The "debatable" dependency loops happen when writing to one attribute
> > >> >>  causes a different attribute to be deleted.  In my (md) case this can
> > >> >>  actually cause a deadlock as both the attributes take the same lock
> > >> >>  while the handler is running.  This is because deleting the attribute
> > >> >>  will block until the all accesses of that attribute have completed (I
> > >> >>  think).
> > >> >>  However it should be possible to delete a name from sysfs while there
> > >> >>  are still accesses pending (it works for normal files!!).  So if
> > >> >>  sysfs could be changed to simply unlink the file and leave deletion to
> > >> >>  happen when the refcount become zero it would certainly make my life
> > >> >>  a lot easier, and allow the removal of some ugly code from md.c.
> > >> >>  I don't know sysfs well enough to suggest a patch though.
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> NeilBrown
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> commit 2e502cfe444b68f6ef6b8b2abe83b6112564095b
> > >> >> Author: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> > >> >> Date:   Wed Feb 10 09:43:45 2010 +1100
> > >> >> 
> > >> >>     sysfs: differentiate  between locking links and non-links for sysfs
> > >> >>     
> > >> >>     symlinks and non-symlink is sysfs are very different.
> > >> >>     A symlink can never be locked (active) while an attribute
> > >> >>     modification routine is running.  So removing symlink from an
> > >> >>     attribute 'store' routine should be permitted without any lockdep
> > >> >>     warnings.
> > >> >>     
> > >> >>     So split the lockdep context for 's_active' in two, one for symlinks
> > >> >>     and other for everything else.
> > >> >>     
> > >> >>     Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> > >> >
> > >> > Nice patch, I'll queue it up for .34.
> > >> 
> > >> Note the patch does not compile with lockdep disabled.
> > >
> > > Ugh, why not?
> > >
> > > Neil, care to fix this up?
> > 
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > -#define sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep(sd)				\
> > +#define sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep(sd, type)			\
> >  do {								\
> >  	static struct lock_class_key __key;			\
> >  								\
> > -	lockdep_init_map(&sd->dep_map, "s_active", &__key, 0);	\
> > +	lockdep_init_map(&sd->dep_map, "s_active_" type, &__key, 0);	\
> >  } while(0)
> >  #else
> >  #define sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep(sd) do {} while(0)
> 
> Got it, I've fixed this by hand.
> 
>

Thanks.
I hadn't sent you a fix myself (As requested) as I got the impression from
the following discussion that a different approach would be taken.

I'm happy either way though.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

  reply	other threads:[~2010-02-18  0:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-10  1:09 Neil Brown
2010-02-10  1:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-10  1:56   ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10  3:05     ` David Rientjes
2010-02-10  3:14       ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10  3:19         ` David Rientjes
2010-02-10  3:33           ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10  2:08 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10  2:19   ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-10  3:12     ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10  8:03     ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-10 10:39       ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-10 18:25         ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-10 23:05           ` Greg KH
2010-02-11  1:31             ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11  2:10               ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-11 18:08                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-12  0:59                   ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-12  1:20                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-12  1:20                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-12  2:16                       ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-11 23:13                 ` [PATCH 0/4] Better sysfs lockdep Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:14                   ` [PATCH 1/4] sysfs: Remove sysfs_get/put_active_two Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:20                     ` [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Only take active references on attributes Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:21                       ` [PATCH 3/4] sysfs: Use one lockdep class per sysfs attribute Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:23                         ` [PATCH 4/4] sysfs: Use sysfs_attr_init and sysfs_bin_attr_init on dynamic attributes Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:42                           ` Greg KH
2010-02-12 12:47                             ` [PATCH] sysfs: Document sysfs_attr_init and sysfs_bin_attr_init Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-12 21:41                               ` [PATCH] sysfs: Use sysfs_attr_init and sysfs_bin_attr_init on module dynamic attributes Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-15 10:38                           ` [PATCH 4/4] sysfs: Use sysfs_attr_init and sysfs_bin_attr_init on " Américo Wang
2010-02-15 12:53                             ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-15 10:35                         ` [PATCH 3/4] sysfs: Use one lockdep class per sysfs attribute Américo Wang
2010-02-15  7:27                       ` [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Only take active references on attributes Américo Wang
2010-02-15  8:15                         ` Américo Wang
2010-02-15  8:31                           ` Américo Wang
2010-02-15 10:11                           ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-15  7:03                     ` [PATCH 1/4] sysfs: Remove sysfs_get/put_active_two Américo Wang
2010-02-11 23:18                   ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:17                 ` [PATCH 0/4] Better sysfs lockdep Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:43                   ` Greg KH
2010-02-10 23:54           ` [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links Tejun Heo
2010-02-11  0:38             ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-10 17:36 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-10 17:55   ` Dmitry Torokhov
2010-02-10 23:06 ` Greg KH
2010-02-11 21:42   ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 22:32     ` Greg KH
2010-02-11 22:47       ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-17 22:38         ` Greg KH
2010-02-18  0:39           ` Neil Brown [this message]
2010-02-18  1:01             ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-18  1:12               ` Greg KH

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100218113912.4a3d36e9@notabene.brown \
    --to=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome