IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
We got the following lockdep splat while running fstests (specifically
btrfs/003 and btrfs/020 in a row) with the new rc. This was uncovered
by 87579e9b7d ("loop: use worker per cgroup instead of kworker") which
converted loop to using workqueues, which comes with lockdep
annotations that don't exist with kworkers. The lockdep splat is as
follows:
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc2-custom+ #34 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
losetup/156417 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff9c7645b02d38 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: flush_workqueue+0x84/0x600
but task is already holding lock:
ffff9c7647395468 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x650 [loop]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #5 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0xba/0x7c0
lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop]
blkdev_get_whole+0x28/0xf0
blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x168/0x3c0
blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0
do_dentry_open+0x163/0x3a0
path_openat+0x74d/0xa40
do_filp_open+0x9c/0x140
do_sys_openat2+0xb1/0x170
__x64_sys_openat+0x54/0x90
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #4 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0xba/0x7c0
blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0xd1/0x3c0
blkdev_get_by_path+0xc0/0xd0
btrfs_scan_one_device+0x52/0x1f0 [btrfs]
btrfs_control_ioctl+0xac/0x170 [btrfs]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #3 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0xba/0x7c0
btrfs_rm_device+0x48/0x6a0 [btrfs]
btrfs_ioctl+0x2d1c/0x3110 [btrfs]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #2 (sb_writers#11){.+.+}-{0:0}:
lo_write_bvec+0x112/0x290 [loop]
loop_process_work+0x25f/0xcb0 [loop]
process_one_work+0x28f/0x5d0
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x140/0x170
ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
-> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
process_one_work+0x266/0x5d0
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x140/0x170
ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
-> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x1130/0x1dc0
lock_acquire+0xf5/0x320
flush_workqueue+0xae/0x600
drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
__loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x650 [loop]
lo_ioctl+0x29d/0x780 [loop]
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
(wq_completion)loop0 --> &disk->open_mutex --> &lo->lo_mutex
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
lock(&disk->open_mutex);
lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
lock((wq_completion)loop0);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by losetup/156417:
#0: ffff9c7647395468 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x650 [loop]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 8 PID: 156417 Comm: losetup Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2-custom+ #34
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
check_noncircular+0x10a/0x120
__lock_acquire+0x1130/0x1dc0
lock_acquire+0xf5/0x320
? flush_workqueue+0x84/0x600
flush_workqueue+0xae/0x600
? flush_workqueue+0x84/0x600
drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
__loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x650 [loop]
lo_ioctl+0x29d/0x780 [loop]
? __lock_acquire+0x3a0/0x1dc0
? update_dl_rq_load_avg+0x152/0x360
? lock_is_held_type+0xa5/0x120
? find_held_lock.constprop.0+0x2b/0x80
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x3b/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x7f645884de6b
Usually the uuid_mutex exists to protect the fs_devices that map
together all of the devices that match a specific uuid. In rm_device
we're messing with the uuid of a device, so it makes sense to protect
that here.
However in doing that it pulls in a whole host of lockdep dependencies,
as we call mnt_may_write() on the sb before we grab the uuid_mutex, thus
we end up with the dependency chain under the uuid_mutex being added
under the normal sb write dependency chain, which causes problems with
loop devices.
We don't need the uuid mutex here however. If we call
btrfs_scan_one_device() before we scratch the super block we will find
the fs_devices and not find the device itself and return EBUSY because
the fs_devices is open. If we call it after the scratch happens it will
not appear to be a valid btrfs file system.
We do not need to worry about other fs_devices modifying operations here
because we're protected by the exclusive operations locking.
So drop the uuid_mutex here in order to fix the lockdep splat.
A more detailed explanation from the discussion:
We are worried about rm and scan racing with each other, before this
change we'll zero the device out under the UUID mutex so when scan does
run it'll make sure that it can go through the whole device scan thing
without rm messing with us.
We aren't worried if the scratch happens first, because the result is we
don't think this is a btrfs device and we bail out.
The only case we are concerned with is we scratch _after_ scan is able
to read the superblock and gets a seemingly valid super block, so lets
consider this case.
Scan will call device_list_add() with the device we're removing. We'll
call find_fsid_with_metadata_uuid() and get our fs_devices for this
UUID. At this point we lock the fs_devices->device_list_mutex. This is
what protects us in this case, but we have two cases here.
1. We aren't to the device removal part of the RM. We found our device,
and device name matches our path, we go down and we set total_devices
to our super number of devices, which doesn't affect anything because
we haven't done the remove yet.
2. We are past the device removal part, which is protected by the
device_list_mutex. Scan doesn't find the device, it goes down and
does the
if (fs_devices->opened)
return -EBUSY;
check and we bail out.
Nothing about this situation is ideal, but the lockdep splat is real,
and the fix is safe, tho admittedly a bit scary looking.
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
[ copy more from the discussion ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
8ef9dc0f14