From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:49:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120217004922.GN23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120217003848.GB20071@boyd>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:38:49PM -0600, Tyler Hicks wrote:
> On 2012-02-16 19:16:34, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:08:57PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Remember this ? https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/15/272
> > > Josh took a stab at fixing it in e096d0c7e2e4e5893792db865dd065ac73cf1f00,
> > > but it seems to still be there.
> >
> > I think Tyler Hicks actually noticed this a while ago, but his patch has
> > been waiting on comment from Al and Christoph:
> >
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/58795/focus=59565
> >
> > I've been hesitant to comment because I obviously screwed up once
> > already. We could try this patch in Fedora for a while if Al and
> > company don't speak up soon.
>
> I'm pretty confident that my patch that Josh linked to would "fix" the
> lockdep warning below. According to the backtrace, it is barking about a
> directory inode and a regular inode having a circular locking
> dependency, so deadlock is not possible in this case.
Sigh... That patch is correct, but it has nothing to do with the locking
order violation that really *is* there. The only benefit would be to
get rid of the "deadlock is not possible" nonsense, since you would see
read/write vs. mmap instead of readdir vs. mmap in the traces. Locking
order is the *same* for directories and nondirectories; both can have
pagefaults under ->i_mutex on their respective inodes. And while mmap
cannot happen for directories, it certainly can happen for regular files,
so taking ->i_mutex in ->mmap() is a plain and simple bug. Should never
be done; in particular, hugetlbfs has ->i_mutex held in read() around
pagefaults, which gives you an obvious deadlock with its ->mmap().
Folks, this is not a false positive and it has nothing to do with misannotation
for directories. Deadlock is real; I have no idea WTF do we what ->i_mutex
held over that area in hugetlbfs ->mmap(), but doing that is really, really
wrong, whatever the reason.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-17 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-17 0:08 Dave Jones
2012-02-17 0:16 ` Josh Boyer
2012-02-17 0:34 ` Al Viro
2012-02-17 0:38 ` Tyler Hicks
2012-02-17 0:49 ` Al Viro [this message]
2012-02-17 3:42 ` Tyler Hicks
2012-02-21 18:21 ` Mimi Zohar
2012-02-17 6:47 ` J. R. Okajima
2012-02-17 17:48 ` udf deadlock (was Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.) Al Viro
2012-02-20 16:01 ` Jan Kara
2012-02-18 10:55 ` hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited Aneesh Kumar K.V
2012-02-17 0:27 ` Al Viro
2012-02-23 9:27 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
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=20120217004922.GN23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=jwboyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tyhicks@canonical.com \
/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