From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@huawei.com>,
chuck.lever@oracle.com, neilb@suse.de, okorniev@redhat.com,
Dai.Ngo@oracle.com, tom@talpey.com, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: yukuai1@huaweicloud.com, houtao1@huawei.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
yangerkun@huawei.com, lilingfeng@huaweicloud.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfsd: decrease sc_count directly if fail to queue dl_recall
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 06:18:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <259b3f5c9a10579813903fa61337f566632adebb.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250410015708.2036236-1-lilingfeng3@huawei.com>
On Thu, 2025-04-10 at 09:57 +0800, Li Lingfeng wrote:
> A deadlock warning occurred when invoking nfs4_put_stid following a failed
> dl_recall queue operation:
> T1 T2
> nfs4_laundromat
> nfs4_get_client_reaplist
> nfs4_anylock_blockers
> __break_lease
> spin_lock // ctx->flc_lock
> spin_lock // clp->cl_lock
> nfs4_lockowner_has_blockers
> locks_owner_has_blockers
> spin_lock // flctx->flc_lock
> nfsd_break_deleg_cb
> nfsd_break_one_deleg
> nfs4_put_stid
> refcount_dec_and_lock
> spin_lock // clp->cl_lock
>
Was this warning generated via static analysis? Given that the refcount
shouldn't go to 0 with the nfs4_put_stid() call in this function, I'm
wondering how the deadlock could occur?
> When a file is opened, an nfs4_delegation is allocated with sc_count
> initialized to 1, and the file_lease holds a reference to the delegation.
> The file_lease is then associated with the file through kernel_setlease.
>
> The disassociation is performed in nfsd4_delegreturn via the following
> call chain:
> nfsd4_delegreturn --> destroy_delegation --> destroy_unhashed_deleg -->
> nfs4_unlock_deleg_lease --> kernel_setlease --> generic_delete_lease
> The corresponding sc_count reference will be released after this
> disassociation.
>
> Since nfsd_break_one_deleg executes while holding the flc_lock, the
> disassociation process becomes blocked when attempting to acquire flc_lock
> in generic_delete_lease. This means:
> 1) sc_count in nfsd_break_one_deleg will not be decremented to 0;
> 2) The nfs4_put_stid called by nfsd_break_one_deleg will not attempt to
> acquire cl_lock;
> 3) Consequently, no deadlock condition is created.
>
> Given that sc_count in nfsd_break_one_deleg remains non-zero, we can
> safely perform refcount_dec on sc_count directly. This approach
> effectively avoids triggering deadlock warnings.
>
> Fixes: 230ca758453c ("nfsd: put dl_stid if fail to queue dl_recall")
> Signed-off-by: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> index 2041268b398a..59a693f22452 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
> @@ -5430,7 +5430,7 @@ static void nfsd_break_one_deleg(struct nfs4_delegation *dp)
> queued = nfsd4_run_cb(&dp->dl_recall);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!queued);
> if (!queued)
> - nfs4_put_stid(&dp->dl_stid);
> + refcount_dec(&dp->dl_stid.sc_count);
> }
>
> /* Called from break_lease() with flc_lock held. */
Ok. I think you're right that it's safe to just decrement it since we
are able to do an unconditional increment just above it. It would be
nice to update the comment above this with an explanation so we're not
scratching our heads over this in a couple of years.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-10 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-10 1:57 Li Lingfeng
2025-04-10 10:18 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2025-04-10 14:30 ` cel
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=259b3f5c9a10579813903fa61337f566632adebb.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=Dai.Ngo@oracle.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=houtao1@huawei.com \
--cc=lilingfeng3@huawei.com \
--cc=lilingfeng@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=okorniev@redhat.com \
--cc=tom@talpey.com \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai1@huaweicloud.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®