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

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

[gregkh]

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
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 637cd060537d ("rbd: new exclusive lock wait/wake code")
Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@easystack.cn>

diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
index c30d227753d7..ea6c592e015c 100644
--- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
@@ -3457,6 +3457,7 @@ static void rbd_lock_del_request(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
 	lockdep_assert_held(&rbd_dev->lock_rwsem);
 	spin_lock(&rbd_dev->lock_lists_lock);
 	if (!list_empty(&img_req->lock_item)) {
+		rbd_assert(!list_empty(&rbd_dev->running_list));
 		list_del_init(&img_req->lock_item);
 		need_wakeup = (rbd_dev->lock_state == RBD_LOCK_STATE_QUIESCING &&
 			       list_empty(&rbd_dev->running_list));
@@ -3476,11 +3477,6 @@ static int rbd_img_exclusive_lock(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
 	if (rbd_lock_add_request(img_req))
 		return 1;
 
-	if (rbd_dev->opts->exclusive) {
-		WARN_ON(1); /* lock got released? */
-		return -EROFS;
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * Note the use of mod_delayed_work() in rbd_acquire_lock()
 	 * and cancel_delayed_work() in wake_lock_waiters().
@@ -4601,6 +4597,10 @@ static void rbd_reacquire_lock(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev)
 			rbd_warn(rbd_dev, "failed to update lock cookie: %d",
 				 ret);
 
+		if (rbd_dev->opts->exclusive)
+			rbd_warn(rbd_dev,
+			     "temporarily releasing lock on exclusive mapping");
+
 		/*
 		 * Lock cookie cannot be updated on older OSDs, so do
 		 * a manual release and queue an acquire.

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

[Ilya Dryomov]

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.

Thanks,

                Ilya

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

[Greg KH]

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