Searched hist:"3 fa421de" (Results 1 – 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | volumes.h | 3fa421de Tue Jul 27 16:01:17 CDT 2021 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: delay blkdev_put until after the device remove
When removing the device we call blkdev_put() on the device once we've
removed it, and because we have an EXCL open we need to take the
->open_mutex on the block device to clean it up. Unfortunately during
device remove we are holding the sb writers lock, which results in the
following lockdep splat:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc2+ #407 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
losetup/11595 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff973ac35dd138 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff973ac9812c68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #4 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop]
blkdev_get_whole+0x25/0xf0
blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x168/0x3c0
blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0
do_dentry_open+0x161/0x390
path_openat+0x3cc/0xa20
do_filp_open+0x96/0x120
do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130
__x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #3 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
blkdev_put+0x3a/0x220
btrfs_rm_device.cold+0x62/0xe5
btrfs_ioctl+0x2a31/0x2e70
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #2 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}:
lo_write_bvec+0xc2/0x240 [loop]
loop_process_work+0x238/0xd00 [loop]
process_one_work+0x26b/0x560
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x140/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
process_one_work+0x245/0x560
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x140/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
__loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
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/11595:
#0: ffff973ac9812c68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 11595 Comm: losetup Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2+ #407
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
check_noncircular+0xcf/0xf0
? stack_trace_save+0x3b/0x50
__lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
? lockdep_init_map_type+0x47/0x220
flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
? verify_cpu+0xf0/0x100
drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
__loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
? blkdev_ioctl+0x8d/0x2a0
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x7fc21255d4cb
So instead save the bdev and do the put once we've dropped the sb
writers lock in order to avoid the lockdep recursion.
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | ioctl.c | 3fa421de Tue Jul 27 16:01:17 CDT 2021 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: delay blkdev_put until after the device remove
When removing the device we call blkdev_put() on the device once we've
removed it, and because we have an EXCL open we need to take the
->open_mutex on the block device to clean it up. Unfortunately during
device remove we are holding the sb writers lock, which results in the
following lockdep splat:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc2+ #407 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
losetup/11595 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff973ac35dd138 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff973ac9812c68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #4 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop]
blkdev_get_whole+0x25/0xf0
blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x168/0x3c0
blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0
do_dentry_open+0x161/0x390
path_openat+0x3cc/0xa20
do_filp_open+0x96/0x120
do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130
__x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #3 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
blkdev_put+0x3a/0x220
btrfs_rm_device.cold+0x62/0xe5
btrfs_ioctl+0x2a31/0x2e70
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #2 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}:
lo_write_bvec+0xc2/0x240 [loop]
loop_process_work+0x238/0xd00 [loop]
process_one_work+0x26b/0x560
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x140/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
process_one_work+0x245/0x560
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x140/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
__loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
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/11595:
#0: ffff973ac9812c68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 11595 Comm: losetup Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2+ #407
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
check_noncircular+0xcf/0xf0
? stack_trace_save+0x3b/0x50
__lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
? lockdep_init_map_type+0x47/0x220
flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
? verify_cpu+0xf0/0x100
drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
__loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
? blkdev_ioctl+0x8d/0x2a0
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x7fc21255d4cb
So instead save the bdev and do the put once we've dropped the sb
writers lock in order to avoid the lockdep recursion.
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| H A D | volumes.c | 3fa421de Tue Jul 27 16:01:17 CDT 2021 Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> btrfs: delay blkdev_put until after the device remove
When removing the device we call blkdev_put() on the device once we've
removed it, and because we have an EXCL open we need to take the
->open_mutex on the block device to clean it up. Unfortunately during
device remove we are holding the sb writers lock, which results in the
following lockdep splat:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-rc2+ #407 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
losetup/11595 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff973ac35dd138 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff973ac9812c68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #4 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop]
blkdev_get_whole+0x25/0xf0
blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x168/0x3c0
blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0
do_dentry_open+0x161/0x390
path_openat+0x3cc/0xa20
do_filp_open+0x96/0x120
do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130
__x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #3 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750
blkdev_put+0x3a/0x220
btrfs_rm_device.cold+0x62/0xe5
btrfs_ioctl+0x2a31/0x2e70
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
-> #2 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}:
lo_write_bvec+0xc2/0x240 [loop]
loop_process_work+0x238/0xd00 [loop]
process_one_work+0x26b/0x560
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x140/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
process_one_work+0x245/0x560
worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0
kthread+0x140/0x160
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
__loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
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/11595:
#0: ffff973ac9812c68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 11595 Comm: losetup Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2+ #407
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72
check_noncircular+0xcf/0xf0
? stack_trace_save+0x3b/0x50
__lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0
? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
? lockdep_init_map_type+0x47/0x220
flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0
? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0
? verify_cpu+0xf0/0x100
drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110
destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250
__loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop]
? blkdev_ioctl+0x8d/0x2a0
block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
RIP: 0033:0x7fc21255d4cb
So instead save the bdev and do the put once we've dropped the sb
writers lock in order to avoid the lockdep recursion.
Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|