From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:52:06 +0100
Message-ID: <20160902175206.GV2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20160901204746.GR2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFxzRnLCev6i_ehw9LFf-dw3s0znF+nP_c86i=219OZhfg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160901210142.GS2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFzxJM4pbS_jySERnCoOvvPbo+FgM7FZEATLJnCseD0j0g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFwntZpaAutp_C=sLBg8ravfYGRoF4TTG1cfE3SjaJEOtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87lgzae3f7.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
 <20160902160026.GT2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <87d1kme10a.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
 <20160902170256.GU2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFz-TaU=C47Rna4b_pibKPfabXWtt88gaqWkUdcN9ay9nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@cyberadapt.com>,
        CAI Qian <caiqian@redhat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
        Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>,
        Eric Sandeen <esandeen@redhat.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:59418 "EHLO
        ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754502AbcIBRwO (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:52:14 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFz-TaU=C47Rna4b_pibKPfabXWtt88gaqWkUdcN9ay9nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 10:12:08AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > It's very much _not_ just overlayfs being pathological - that it certainly is,
> > but the problem is much wider.
> 
> Al, can you take a look at my two patches, and see if you agree that
> they fix it, though?

AFAICS, they should.  Locking is obviously saner that way and AFAICS the
rest is absolutely straightforward.

Acked-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

> Of course, we now have *another* splice deadlock. That pipe inode is
> nasty, it's very easy to deadlock on it in subtle ways.

I'm still digging through iomap.c, but that's better taken to another branch
of this thread...