From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755246AbbG0B0b (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:26:31 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:27072 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751431AbbG0B03 (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jul 2015 21:26:29 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,520,1432569600"; d="scan'208";a="98908438" Message-ID: <55B5876F.70708@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:20:47 +0800 From: Dongsheng Yang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Weinberger , CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs: Kill unneeded locking in ubifs_init_security References: <1436348796-19725-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <1436348796-19725-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.66] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/08/2015 05:46 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Fixes the following lockdep splat: > [ 1.244527] ============================================= > [ 1.245193] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > [ 1.245193] 4.2.0-rc1+ #37 Not tainted > [ 1.245193] --------------------------------------------- > [ 1.245193] cp/742 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 1.245193] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9){+.+.+.}, at: [] ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0 > [ 1.245193] > [ 1.245193] but task is already holding lock: > [ 1.245193] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9){+.+.+.}, at: [] path_openat+0x3af/0x1280 > [ 1.245193] > [ 1.245193] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 1.245193] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [ 1.245193] > [ 1.245193] CPU0 > [ 1.245193] ---- > [ 1.245193] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9); > [ 1.245193] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9); > [ 1.245193] > [ 1.245193] *** DEADLOCK *** > [ 1.245193] > [ 1.245193] May be due to missing lock nesting notation > [ 1.245193] > [ 1.245193] 2 locks held by cp/742: > [ 1.245193] #0: (sb_writers#5){.+.+.+}, at: [] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50 > [ 1.245193] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9){+.+.+.}, at: [] path_openat+0x3af/0x1280 > [ 1.245193] > [ 1.245193] stack backtrace: > [ 1.245193] CPU: 2 PID: 742 Comm: cp Not tainted 4.2.0-rc1+ #37 > [ 1.245193] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.7.5-0-ge51488c-20140816_022509-build35 04/01/2014 > [ 1.245193] ffffffff8252d530 ffff88007b023a38 ffffffff814f6f49 ffffffff810b56c5 > [ 1.245193] ffff88007c30cc80 ffff88007b023af8 ffffffff810a150d ffff88007b023a68 > [ 1.245193] 000000008101302a ffff880000000000 00000008f447e23f ffffffff8252d500 > [ 1.245193] Call Trace: > [ 1.245193] [] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65 > [ 1.245193] [] ? console_unlock+0x1c5/0x510 > [ 1.245193] [] __lock_acquire+0x1a6d/0x1ea0 > [ 1.245193] [] ? __lock_is_held+0x58/0x80 > [ 1.245193] [] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x270 > [ 1.245193] [] ? ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0 > [ 1.245193] [] mutex_lock_nested+0x6b/0x3a0 > [ 1.245193] [] ? ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0 > [ 1.245193] [] ? ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0 > [ 1.245193] [] ubifs_init_security+0x29/0xb0 > [ 1.245193] [] ubifs_create+0xa6/0x1f0 > [ 1.245193] [] ? path_openat+0x3af/0x1280 > [ 1.245193] [] vfs_create+0x95/0xc0 > [ 1.245193] [] path_openat+0x7cc/0x1280 > [ 1.245193] [] ? __lock_acquire+0x543/0x1ea0 > [ 1.245193] [] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x90/0xc0 > [ 1.245193] [] ? calc_global_load_tick+0x60/0x90 > [ 1.245193] [] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x90/0xc0 > [ 1.245193] [] ? __alloc_fd+0xaf/0x180 > [ 1.245193] [] do_filp_open+0x75/0xd0 > [ 1.245193] [] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x26/0x40 > [ 1.245193] [] ? __alloc_fd+0xaf/0x180 > [ 1.245193] [] do_sys_open+0x129/0x200 > [ 1.245193] [] SyS_open+0x19/0x20 > [ 1.245193] [] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x6f > > While the lockdep splat is a false positive, becuase path_openat holds i_mutex > of the parent directory and ubifs_init_security() tries to acquire i_mutex > of a new inode, it reveals that taking i_mutex in ubifs_init_security() is > in vain because it is only being called in the inode allocation path > and therefore nobody else can see the inode yet. Yes, makes sense to me. Reviewed and Tested. Thanx Yang > > Reported-by: Boris Brezillon > Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger > --- > fs/ubifs/xattr.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ubifs/xattr.c b/fs/ubifs/xattr.c > index 96f3448..fd65b3f 100644 > --- a/fs/ubifs/xattr.c > +++ b/fs/ubifs/xattr.c > @@ -652,11 +652,8 @@ int ubifs_init_security(struct inode *dentry, struct inode *inode, > { > int err; > > - mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex); > err = security_inode_init_security(inode, dentry, qstr, > &init_xattrs, 0); > - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); > - > if (err) { > struct ubifs_info *c = dentry->i_sb->s_fs_info; > ubifs_err(c, "cannot initialize security for inode %lu, error %d", >