Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rbd: don't assume RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED for exclusive" failed to apply to 6.10-stable tree

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 12:54:52PM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 12:25 PM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The patch below does not apply to the 6.10-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 <stable@vger.kernel.org>.
> >
> > To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:
> >
> > git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.10.y
> > git checkout FETCH_HEAD
> > git cherry-pick -x 2237ceb71f89837ac47c5dce2aaa2c2b3a337a3c
> > # <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
> > git commit -s
> > git send-email --to '<stable@vger.kernel.org>' --in-reply-to '2024073021-strut-specimen-8aad@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.10.y' HEAD^..
> >
> > Possible dependencies:
> >
> > 2237ceb71f89 ("rbd: don't assume RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED for exclusive mappings")
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> >
> > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
> >
> > From 2237ceb71f89837ac47c5dce2aaa2c2b3a337a3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:07:59 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] rbd: don't assume RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED for exclusive
> >  mappings
> >
> > Every time a watch is reestablished after getting lost, we need to
> > update the cookie which involves quiescing exclusive lock.  For this,
> > we transition from RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED to RBD_LOCK_STATE_QUIESCING
> > roughly for the duration of rbd_reacquire_lock() call.  If the mapping
> > is exclusive and I/O happens to arrive in this time window, it's failed
> > with EROFS (later translated to EIO) based on the wrong assumption in
> > rbd_img_exclusive_lock() -- "lock got released?" check there stopped
> > making sense with commit a2b1da09793d ("rbd: lock should be quiesced on
> > reacquire").
> >
> > To make it worse, any such I/O is added to the acquiring list before
> > EROFS is returned and this sets up for violating rbd_lock_del_request()
> > precondition that the request is either on the running list or not on
> > any list at all -- see commit ded080c86b3f ("rbd: don't move requests
> > to the running list on errors").  rbd_lock_del_request() ends up
> > processing these requests as if they were on the running list which
> > screws up quiescing_wait completion counter and ultimately leads to
> >
> >     rbd_assert(!completion_done(&rbd_dev->quiescing_wait));
> >
> > being triggered on the next watch error.
> >
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 06ef84c4e9c4: rbd: rename RBD_LOCK_STATE_RELEASING and releasing_wait
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Please grab commit f5c466a0fdb2 ("rbd: rename RBD_LOCK_STATE_RELEASING
> and releasing_wait") as a prerequisite for this one.  I forgot to adjust
> the SHA in the tag that specifies it after a rebase, sorry.
> 
> This applies to all stable kernels.

Now done, thanks.  I was wondering about that invalid sha1, odd that the
linux-next scripts didn't catch it :(

greg k-h