missing parentheses in USE_NEW_SCHEME #775

atmgnd · 2020-01-01T11:36:01Z

accroding to bd0e6c9#diff-28615d62e1250eadc353d804f49bc6d6, will try old enumeration scheme first for high speed devices. for example, when a high speed device pluged in, line 2720 should expand to 0 at the first time. USE_NEW_SCHEME(0, 0 || 0 || 1) === 0. but it wrongly expand to 1(alway expand to 1 for high speed device), and change USE_NEW_SCHEME to USE_NEW_SCHEME((i) % 2 == (int)(scheme)) may be better ?

KernelPRBot · 2020-01-01T11:40:14Z

Hi @atmgnd!

Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel!

Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.

Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process.

Here's what to do:

Format your contribution according to kernel requirements
Decide who to send your contribution to
Set up your system to send your contribution as an email
Send your contribution and wait for feedback

How do I format my contribution?

The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations.

Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea.

You can create patches with git format-patch.

Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary.

Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with.

Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel.

Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this.

Where do I send my contribution?

The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes.

If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the get_maintainer.pl script in the kernel source can help you.

get_maintainer.pl will take the patch or patches you created in the previous step, and tell you who is responsible for them, and what mailing lists are used. You can also take a look at the MAINTAINERS file by hand.

Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches.

It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.)

How do I send my contribution?

Use git send-email, which will ensure that your patches are formatted in the standard manner. In order to use git send-email, you'll need to configure git to use your SMTP email server.

For more information about using git send-email, look at the Git documentation or type git help send-email. There are a number of useful guides and tutorials about git send-email that can be found on the internet.

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed.

Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine.

If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:

Kernel Newbies - this website contains a lot of useful resources for new kernel developers.
The kernel documentation - see also the Documentation directory in the kernel tree.

If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers!

I sent my patch - now what?

You wait.

You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at.

Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:

You might get a response to your email. Often these will be comments, which may require you to make changes to your patch, or explain why your way is the best way. You should respond to these comments, and you may need to submit another revision of your patch to address the issues raised.
Your patch might be merged into the subsystem tree. Code that becomes part of Linux isn't merged into the main repository straight away - it first goes into the subsystem tree, which is managed by the subsystem maintainer. It is then batched up with a number of other changes sent to Linus for inclusion. (This process is described in some detail in the kernel development process guide).
Your patch might be ignored completely. This happens sometimes - don't take it personally. Here's what to do:
- Wait a bit more - patches often take several weeks to get a response; more if they were sent at a busy time.
- Kernel developers often silently ignore patches that break the rules. Check for obvious violations of the Submitting Patches guidelines, the style guidelines, and any other documentation you can find about your subsystem. Check that you're sending your patch to the right place.
- Try again later. When you resend it, don't add angry commentary, as that will get your patch ignored. It might also get you silently blacklisted.

Further information

Working with the kernel development community - the official documentation for new kernel contributors

Happy hacking!

This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot.

atmgnd · 2020-01-01T11:41:33Z

the missing parentheses causes a fail wiht "device descriptor read/64, error -110" using my usb driver on vmware using usb 3.0 hub.

atmgnd · 2020-01-01T11:56:48Z

the missing parentheses causes a fail wiht "device descriptor read/64, error -110" using my usb driver on vmware using usb 3.0 hub.

rust: introduce `Task::spawn`

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock: ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 but task is already holding lock: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0 __btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600 btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230 btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70 btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0 __btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280 btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290 btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0 process_one_work+0x271/0x590 worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0 kthread+0xf0/0x120 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70 do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0 relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0 relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd -> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1 Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-tree-01); lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2); *** DEADLOCK *** 7 locks held by btrfs/752500: #0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90 #1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40 #2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400 #3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610 #4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 #5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 #6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73 check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 ? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50 ? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key. However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of reloc tree -> normal tree for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks. However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of normal tree -> reloc tree which is why lockdep complains. Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root. Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged. This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we maintain the lock order of normal tree -> reloc tree We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting the key for the block we're linking into the fs root. With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock: ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 but task is already holding lock: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0 __btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600 btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230 btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70 btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0 __btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280 btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290 btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0 process_one_work+0x271/0x590 worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0 kthread+0xf0/0x120 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70 do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0 relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0 relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd -> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1 Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-tree-01); lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2); *** DEADLOCK *** 7 locks held by btrfs/752500: #0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90 #1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40 #2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400 #3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610 #4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 #5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 torvalds#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73 check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 ? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50 ? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key. However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of reloc tree -> normal tree for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks. However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of normal tree -> reloc tree which is why lockdep complains. Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root. Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged. This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we maintain the lock order of normal tree -> reloc tree We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting the key for the block we're linking into the fs root. With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit b40130b ] We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock: ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 but task is already holding lock: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0 __btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600 btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230 btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70 btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0 __btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280 btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290 btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0 process_one_work+0x271/0x590 worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0 kthread+0xf0/0x120 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70 do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0 relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0 relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd -> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1 Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-tree-01); lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2); *** DEADLOCK *** 7 locks held by btrfs/752500: #0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90 #1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40 #2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400 #3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610 #4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 #5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 torvalds#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73 check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 ? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50 ? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key. However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of reloc tree -> normal tree for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks. However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of normal tree -> reloc tree which is why lockdep complains. Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root. Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged. This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we maintain the lock order of normal tree -> reloc tree We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting the key for the block we're linking into the fs root. With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock: ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 but task is already holding lock: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0 __btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600 btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230 btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70 btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0 __btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280 btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290 btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0 process_one_work+0x271/0x590 worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0 kthread+0xf0/0x120 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70 do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0 relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0 relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd -> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1 Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-tree-01); lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2); *** DEADLOCK *** 7 locks held by btrfs/752500: #0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90 #1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40 #2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400 #3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610 #4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 #5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 torvalds#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73 check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 ? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50 ? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key. However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of reloc tree -> normal tree for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks. However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of normal tree -> reloc tree which is why lockdep complains. Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root. Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged. This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we maintain the lock order of normal tree -> reloc tree We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting the key for the block we're linking into the fs root. With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit b40130b ] We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock: ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 but task is already holding lock: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0 btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0 __btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600 btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230 btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70 btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0 __btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280 btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290 btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0 process_one_work+0x271/0x590 worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0 kthread+0xf0/0x120 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}: down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70 do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0 relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0 relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd -> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1 Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-tree-01); lock(btrfs-tree-01/1); lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2); *** DEADLOCK *** 7 locks held by btrfs/752500: #0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90 #1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40 #2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400 #3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610 #4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 openbmc#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0 openbmc#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ torvalds#775 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73 check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 __lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10 lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 down_write_nested+0x41/0x80 ? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110 btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50 btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70 ? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50 ? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180 replace_path+0x541/0x9f0 merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610 merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260 relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560 btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400 btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140 btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40 btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140 ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key. However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of reloc tree -> normal tree for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks. However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of normal tree -> reloc tree which is why lockdep complains. Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root. Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged. This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we maintain the lock order of normal tree -> reloc tree We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting the key for the block we're linking into the fs root. With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

Running smb2.rename test from Samba smbtorture suite against a kernel built with lockdep triggers a "possible recursive locking detected" warning. This is because mnt_want_write() is called twice with no mnt_drop_write() in between: -> ksmbd_vfs_mkdir() -> ksmbd_vfs_kern_path_create() -> kern_path_create() -> filename_create() -> mnt_want_write() -> mnt_want_write() Fix this by removing the mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write calls from vfs helpers that call kern_path_create(). Full lockdep trace below: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.6.0-rc5 torvalds#775 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- kworker/1:1/32 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 but task is already holding lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(sb_writers#5); lock(sb_writers#5); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by kworker/1:1/32: #0: ffff8880064e4138 ((wq_completion)ksmbd-io){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #1: ffff888005b0fdd0 ((work_completion)(&work->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #2: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 #3: ffff8880057ce760 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#3/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: filename_create+0x123/0x260 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 32 Comm: kworker/1:1 Not tainted 6.6.0-rc5 torvalds#775 Workqueue: ksmbd-io handle_ksmbd_work Call Trace: <TASK> dump_stack_lvl+0x4f/0x90 dump_stack+0x14/0x20 print_deadlock_bug+0x2f0/0x410 check_deadlock+0x26b/0x3b0 __lock_acquire+0xce2/0x1060 ? mark_lock.part.0+0xff/0x720 ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? mark_held_locks+0x6b/0x90 lock_acquire.part.0+0x125/0x2d0 ? ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 ? __pfx_lock_acquire.part.0+0x10/0x10 ? __kmem_cache_free+0x179/0x280 ? ____kasan_slab_free+0x15b/0x1d0 ? __kasan_slab_free+0x16/0x20 ? slab_free_freelist_hook+0xbc/0x180 lock_acquire+0x93/0x160 ? ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 mnt_want_write+0x49/0x220 ? ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 ? __pfx__printk+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0x10/0x10 smb2_open+0x1064/0x38b0 ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 ? __pfx_smb2_open+0x10/0x10 ? __lock_release+0x13f/0x290 ? smb2_validate_credit_charge+0x25d/0x360 ? __pfx___lock_release+0x10/0x10 ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x127/0x1c0 ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10 ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xac/0x110 ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x50 ? smb2_validate_credit_charge+0x25d/0x360 ? ksmbd_smb2_check_message+0x3be/0x400 ? __pfx_ksmbd_smb2_check_message+0x10/0x10 __process_request+0x151/0x310 __handle_ksmbd_work+0x33c/0x520 ? __pfx___handle_ksmbd_work+0x10/0x10 handle_ksmbd_work+0x4a/0xd0 process_one_work+0x4a7/0x980 ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10 ? assign_work+0xe1/0x120 worker_thread+0x365/0x570 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0x18d/0x1d0 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x38/0x70 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30 </TASK> Fixes: 40b268d ("ksmbd: add mnt_want_write to ksmbd vfs functions") Signed-off-by: Marios Makassikis <[email protected]>

Running smb2.rename test from Samba smbtorture suite against a kernel built with lockdep triggers a "possible recursive locking detected" warning. This is because mnt_want_write() is called twice with no mnt_drop_write() in between: -> ksmbd_vfs_mkdir() -> ksmbd_vfs_kern_path_create() -> kern_path_create() -> filename_create() -> mnt_want_write() -> mnt_want_write() Fix this by removing the mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write calls from vfs helpers that call kern_path_create(). Full lockdep trace below: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.6.0-rc5 torvalds#775 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- kworker/1:1/32 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 but task is already holding lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(sb_writers#5); lock(sb_writers#5); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by kworker/1:1/32: #0: ffff8880064e4138 ((wq_completion)ksmbd-io){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #1: ffff888005b0fdd0 ((work_completion)(&work->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #2: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 #3: ffff8880057ce760 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#3/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: filename_create+0x123/0x260 Cc: [email protected] Fixes: 40b268d ("ksmbd: add mnt_want_write to ksmbd vfs functions") Signed-off-by: Marios Makassikis <[email protected]> Acked-by: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Steve French <[email protected]>

commit 807252f upstream. Running smb2.rename test from Samba smbtorture suite against a kernel built with lockdep triggers a "possible recursive locking detected" warning. This is because mnt_want_write() is called twice with no mnt_drop_write() in between: -> ksmbd_vfs_mkdir() -> ksmbd_vfs_kern_path_create() -> kern_path_create() -> filename_create() -> mnt_want_write() -> mnt_want_write() Fix this by removing the mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write calls from vfs helpers that call kern_path_create(). Full lockdep trace below: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.6.0-rc5 torvalds#775 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- kworker/1:1/32 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 but task is already holding lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(sb_writers#5); lock(sb_writers#5); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by kworker/1:1/32: #0: ffff8880064e4138 ((wq_completion)ksmbd-io){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #1: ffff888005b0fdd0 ((work_completion)(&work->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #2: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 #3: ffff8880057ce760 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#3/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: filename_create+0x123/0x260 Cc: [email protected] Fixes: 40b268d ("ksmbd: add mnt_want_write to ksmbd vfs functions") Signed-off-by: Marios Makassikis <[email protected]> Acked-by: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Steve French <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit 807252f ] Running smb2.rename test from Samba smbtorture suite against a kernel built with lockdep triggers a "possible recursive locking detected" warning. This is because mnt_want_write() is called twice with no mnt_drop_write() in between: -> ksmbd_vfs_mkdir() -> ksmbd_vfs_kern_path_create() -> kern_path_create() -> filename_create() -> mnt_want_write() -> mnt_want_write() Fix this by removing the mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write calls from vfs helpers that call kern_path_create(). Full lockdep trace below: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.6.0-rc5 torvalds#775 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- kworker/1:1/32 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 but task is already holding lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(sb_writers#5); lock(sb_writers#5); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by kworker/1:1/32: #0: ffff8880064e4138 ((wq_completion)ksmbd-io){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #1: ffff888005b0fdd0 ((work_completion)(&work->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #2: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 #3: ffff8880057ce760 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#3/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: filename_create+0x123/0x260 Cc: [email protected] Fixes: 40b268d ("ksmbd: add mnt_want_write to ksmbd vfs functions") Signed-off-by: Marios Makassikis <[email protected]> Acked-by: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Steve French <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit 807252f ] Running smb2.rename test from Samba smbtorture suite against a kernel built with lockdep triggers a "possible recursive locking detected" warning. This is because mnt_want_write() is called twice with no mnt_drop_write() in between: -> ksmbd_vfs_mkdir() -> ksmbd_vfs_kern_path_create() -> kern_path_create() -> filename_create() -> mnt_want_write() -> mnt_want_write() Fix this by removing the mnt_want_write/mnt_drop_write calls from vfs helpers that call kern_path_create(). Full lockdep trace below: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.6.0-rc5 torvalds#775 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- kworker/1:1/32 is trying to acquire lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksmbd_vfs_mkdir+0xe1/0x410 but task is already holding lock: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(sb_writers#5); lock(sb_writers#5); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 4 locks held by kworker/1:1/32: #0: ffff8880064e4138 ((wq_completion)ksmbd-io){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #1: ffff888005b0fdd0 ((work_completion)(&work->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x40e/0x980 #2: ffff888005ac83f8 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: filename_create+0xb6/0x260 #3: ffff8880057ce760 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#3/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: filename_create+0x123/0x260 Cc: [email protected] Fixes: 40b268d ("ksmbd: add mnt_want_write to ksmbd vfs functions") Signed-off-by: Marios Makassikis <[email protected]> Acked-by: Namjae Jeon <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Steve French <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

atmgnd closed this Jan 1, 2020

atmgnd deleted the patch-1 branch January 1, 2020 11:57

nbdd0121 pushed a commit to nbdd0121/linux that referenced this pull request May 26, 2022

Merge pull request torvalds#775 from wedsonaf/task-spawn

9a87c30

rust: introduce `Task::spawn`

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

missing parentheses in USE_NEW_SCHEME #775

missing parentheses in USE_NEW_SCHEME #775

atmgnd commented Jan 1, 2020

KernelPRBot commented Jan 1, 2020

atmgnd commented Jan 1, 2020

atmgnd commented Jan 1, 2020

missing parentheses in USE_NEW_SCHEME #775

missing parentheses in USE_NEW_SCHEME #775

Conversation

atmgnd commented Jan 1, 2020

KernelPRBot commented Jan 1, 2020

How do I format my contribution?

Where do I send my contribution?

How do I send my contribution?

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

I sent my patch - now what?

Further information

atmgnd commented Jan 1, 2020

atmgnd commented Jan 1, 2020