From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16A4C5DF9D for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:52:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC4522226 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:52:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1604411534; bh=TB9nnDf2j/brqehmdPOPkPyB4afFJQofYo7axF0Wnr4=; h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:List-ID:From; b=HZKZAU4QCErT2YGQPayVDTP1kZPhqeZsyR3h3SIKXiZNohQHs2ebGVu2S2UhNqZgg iDQY1bzLnWnc10ay5lQ0E9GjlXlnzCacMjqnCU2iaC0Q/GgHWrDmMTH6NWf2H5nq+9 BXGKy+rgUCdgZ238k6vylD3sAsMGLX+IwW7AVvgo= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729467AbgKCNwJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:52:09 -0500 Received: from wforward3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.22]:44891 "EHLO wforward3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729465AbgKCNwF (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:52:05 -0500 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailforward.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F209CA; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:52:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Nov 2020 08:52:04 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=YHomKK FTCq9ZH5mKx0sOAsVuM5izkiHB3mPJlbG6G2Q=; b=D6Oln0Mt/UQypVlrRHwrbU ttdxQ/kWBudLGUE6CHpp97yz0C+CtRAPdzAiHR89LnANcaWAv98GU31eNZ0roygO jLX20Z8UbiuimkcDzD0HfY2+0WctMMDmw9BqQIUDoJFHWqErE0ksKjOaC8HYj6+E h+7pBYNAFiPjcWQAFp52vBdM6yeboYsBzqBor2BVJNi58rA403JmB/wGgNkrXuTx C6AwdlViQreULnvTW7E8x5lt6vsJ0Q4Lvg3UMUz0KmVA6wAgaLb9qW6BtoCbgFN/ zm884OlERtpT1uwieiZcvPQmPcFagIygS9r1JqQSMAVuOvqckXm+9BUQR3rRSNlw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedruddtfedgheehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvffhfffkgggtgfesthekredttd dtlfenucfhrhhomhepoehgrhgvghhkhheslhhinhhugihfohhunhgurghtihhonhdrohhr gheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepieetveehuedvhfdtgfdvieeiheehfeelveevheejud etveeuveeludejjefgteehnecukfhppeekfedrkeeirdejgedrieegnecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgepkeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhrvghgsehkrhhorghhrd gtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (83-86-74-64.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.74.64]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 676593064610; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:52:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] btrfs: sysfs: init devices outside of the chunk_mutex" failed to apply to 4.4-stable tree To: josef@toxicpanda.com, dsterba@suse.com Cc: From: Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 14:52:54 +0100 Message-ID: <160441157478123@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org The patch below does not apply to the 4.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to . thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From ca10845a56856fff4de3804c85e6424d0f6d0cde Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josef Bacik Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 08:09:01 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: sysfs: init devices outside of the chunk_mutex While running btrfs/061, btrfs/073, btrfs/078, or btrfs/178 we hit the following lockdep splat: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.9.0-rc3+ #4 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kswapd0/100 is trying to acquire lock: ffff96ecc22ef4a0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330 but task is already holding lock: ffffffff8dd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #3 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: fs_reclaim_acquire+0x65/0x80 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x20/0x200 kmem_cache_alloc+0x37/0x270 alloc_inode+0x82/0xb0 iget_locked+0x10d/0x2c0 kernfs_get_inode+0x1b/0x130 kernfs_get_tree+0x136/0x240 sysfs_get_tree+0x16/0x40 vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0 path_mount+0x434/0xc00 __x64_sys_mount+0xe3/0x120 do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #2 (kernfs_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0 kernfs_add_one+0x23/0x150 kernfs_create_link+0x63/0xa0 sysfs_do_create_link_sd+0x5e/0xd0 btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir+0x81/0x130 btrfs_init_new_device+0x67f/0x1250 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ef/0x2e20 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0 do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #1 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0 btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x125/0x3a0 find_free_extent+0xdf6/0x1210 btrfs_reserve_extent+0xb3/0x1b0 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0xb0/0x310 alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush+0x4a/0x60 __btrfs_cow_block+0x11a/0x530 btrfs_cow_block+0x104/0x220 btrfs_search_slot+0x52e/0x9d0 btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x64/0xb0 btrfs_insert_delayed_items+0x90/0x4f0 btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_items+0x93/0x140 btrfs_log_inode+0x5de/0x2020 btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x429/0xc90 btrfs_log_new_name+0x95/0x9b btrfs_rename2+0xbb9/0x1800 vfs_rename+0x64f/0x9f0 do_renameat2+0x320/0x4e0 __x64_sys_rename+0x1f/0x30 do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x119c/0x1fc0 lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0 __mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0 __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330 btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500 evict+0xcf/0x1f0 dispose_list+0x48/0x70 prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50 super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0 do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0 shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290 shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0 balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670 kswapd+0x213/0x4c0 kthread+0x138/0x160 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &delayed_node->mutex --> kernfs_mutex --> fs_reclaim Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(fs_reclaim); lock(kernfs_mutex); lock(fs_reclaim); lock(&delayed_node->mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by kswapd0/100: #0: ffffffff8dd74700 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30 #1: ffffffff8dd65c50 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: shrink_slab+0x115/0x290 #2: ffff96ed2ade30e0 (&type->s_umount_key#36){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1e0 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 100 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc3+ #4 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x8b/0xb8 check_noncircular+0x12d/0x150 __lock_acquire+0x119c/0x1fc0 lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330 __mutex_lock+0x7e/0x7e0 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330 ? __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330 ? lock_acquire+0xa7/0x3d0 ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80 __btrfs_release_delayed_node.part.0+0x3f/0x330 btrfs_evict_inode+0x24c/0x500 evict+0xcf/0x1f0 dispose_list+0x48/0x70 prune_icache_sb+0x44/0x50 super_cache_scan+0x161/0x1e0 do_shrink_slab+0x178/0x3c0 shrink_slab+0x17c/0x290 shrink_node+0x2b2/0x6d0 balance_pgdat+0x30a/0x670 kswapd+0x213/0x4c0 ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x41/0x50 ? add_wait_queue_exclusive+0x70/0x70 ? balance_pgdat+0x670/0x670 kthread+0x138/0x160 ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x40/0x40 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 This happens because we are holding the chunk_mutex at the time of adding in a new device. However we only need to hold the device_list_mutex, as we're going to iterate over the fs_devices devices. Move the sysfs init stuff outside of the chunk_mutex to get rid of this lockdep splat. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4.x: f3cd2c58110dad14e: btrfs: sysfs, rename device_link add/remove functions CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 4.4.x Reported-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik Reviewed-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: David Sterba diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 9d169cba8514..c86ffad04641 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -2597,9 +2597,6 @@ int btrfs_init_new_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, const char *device_path btrfs_set_super_num_devices(fs_info->super_copy, orig_super_num_devices + 1); - /* add sysfs device entry */ - btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir(fs_devices, device); - /* * we've got more storage, clear any full flags on the space * infos @@ -2607,6 +2604,10 @@ int btrfs_init_new_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, const char *device_path btrfs_clear_space_info_full(fs_info); mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); + + /* Add sysfs device entry */ + btrfs_sysfs_add_devices_dir(fs_devices, device); + mutex_unlock(&fs_devices->device_list_mutex); if (seeding_dev) {