[-mm patch] lockdep: possible deadlock in sysfs
From: Frederik Deweerdt
Date: Fri Jan 05 2007 - 07:19:00 EST
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 10:02:00PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.20-rc3/2.6.20-rc3-mm1/
>
Hi,
Lockdep issues the following warning:
[ 9.064000] =============================================
[ 9.064000] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 9.064000] 2.6.20-rc3-mm1 #3
[ 9.064000] ---------------------------------------------
[ 9.064000] init/1 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 9.064000] (&sysfs_inode_imutex_key){--..}, at: [<c03e6afc>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[ 9.064000]
[ 9.064000] but task is already holding lock:
[ 9.064000] (&sysfs_inode_imutex_key){--..}, at: [<c03e6afc>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[ 9.065000]
[ 9.065000] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 9.065000] 2 locks held by init/1:
[ 9.065000] #0: (tty_mutex){--..}, at: [<c03e6afc>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[ 9.065000] #1: (&sysfs_inode_imutex_key){--..}, at: [<c03e6afc>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[ 9.065000]
[ 9.065000] stack backtrace:
[ 9.065000] [<c010390d>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
[ 9.066000] [<c0103935>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[ 9.066000] [<c0103a2f>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[ 9.066000] [<c0138cb8>] print_deadlock_bug+0xb9/0xc3
[ 9.066000] [<c0138d17>] check_deadlock+0x55/0x5a
[ 9.066000] [<c013a953>] __lock_acquire+0x371/0xbf0
[ 9.066000] [<c013b7a9>] lock_acquire+0x69/0x83
[ 9.066000] [<c03e6b7e>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x75/0x2d1
[ 9.066000] [<c03e6afc>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
[ 9.066000] [<c01b249c>] sysfs_drop_dentry+0xb1/0x133
[ 9.066000] [<c01b25d1>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0xb3/0x142
[ 9.066000] [<c01b30ed>] sysfs_remove_file+0xd/0x10
[ 9.067000] [<c02849e0>] device_remove_file+0x23/0x2e
[ 9.067000] [<c02850b2>] device_del+0x188/0x1e6
[ 9.067000] [<c028511b>] device_unregister+0xb/0x15
[ 9.067000] [<c0285318>] device_destroy+0x9c/0xa9
[ 9.067000] [<c0261431>] vcs_remove_sysfs+0x1c/0x3b
[ 9.067000] [<c0267a08>] con_close+0x5e/0x6b
[ 9.067000] [<c02598f2>] release_dev+0x4c4/0x6e5
[ 9.067000] [<c0259faa>] tty_release+0x12/0x1c
[ 9.067000] [<c0174872>] __fput+0x177/0x1a0
[ 9.067000] [<c01746f5>] fput+0x3b/0x41
[ 9.068000] [<c0172ee1>] filp_close+0x36/0x65
[ 9.068000] [<c0172f73>] sys_close+0x63/0xa4
[ 9.068000] [<c0102a96>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99
[ 9.068000] =======================
This is due to sysfs_hash_and_remove() holding dir->d_inode->i_mutex
before calling sysfs_drop_dentry() which calls orphan_all_buffers()
which in turn takes node->i_mutex.
The following patch solves the problem by defering the buffers orphaning
after the dir->d_inode->imutex is released. Not sure it's the best
solution though, better wait for feedback from Maneesh and Oliver.
(This is mostly a resend of the patch that I sent for 2.6.20-rc2-mm1 [1], but
it adds the initialisation of inode in sysfs_hash_and_remove)
Regards,
Frederik
[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/5164f76c31958e0b?dmode=source
Signed-off-by: Frederik Deweerdt <frederik.deweerdt@xxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/fs/sysfs/inode.c b/fs/sysfs/inode.c
index 8c533cb..bcf6bc0 100644
--- a/fs/sysfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/sysfs/inode.c
@@ -230,10 +230,10 @@ static inline void orphan_all_buffers(struct inode *node)
* Unhashes the dentry corresponding to given sysfs_dirent
* Called with parent inode's i_mutex held.
*/
-void sysfs_drop_dentry(struct sysfs_dirent * sd, struct dentry * parent)
+struct inode *sysfs_drop_dentry(struct sysfs_dirent * sd, struct dentry * parent)
{
struct dentry * dentry = sd->s_dentry;
- struct inode *inode;
+ struct inode *inode = NULL;
if (dentry) {
spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
@@ -248,19 +248,19 @@ void sysfs_drop_dentry(struct sysfs_dirent * sd, struct dentry * parent)
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
simple_unlink(parent->d_inode, dentry);
- orphan_all_buffers(inode);
- iput(inode);
} else {
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
}
}
+ return inode;
}
int sysfs_hash_and_remove(struct dentry * dir, const char * name)
{
struct sysfs_dirent * sd;
struct sysfs_dirent * parent_sd;
+ struct inode *inode = NULL;
int found = 0;
if (!dir)
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ int sysfs_hash_and_remove(struct dentry * dir, const char * name)
continue;
if (!strcmp(sysfs_get_name(sd), name)) {
list_del_init(&sd->s_sibling);
- sysfs_drop_dentry(sd, dir);
+ inode = sysfs_drop_dentry(sd, dir);
sysfs_put(sd);
found = 1;
break;
@@ -285,5 +285,10 @@ int sysfs_hash_and_remove(struct dentry * dir, const char * name)
}
mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
+ if (found && inode) {
+ orphan_all_buffers(inode);
+ iput(inode);
+ }
+
return found ? 0 : -ENOENT;
}
diff --git a/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h b/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
index 5100a12..ef9d217 100644
--- a/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
+++ b/fs/sysfs/sysfs.h
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ extern int sysfs_create_subdir(struct kobject *, const char *, struct dentry **)
extern void sysfs_remove_subdir(struct dentry *);
extern const unsigned char * sysfs_get_name(struct sysfs_dirent *sd);
-extern void sysfs_drop_dentry(struct sysfs_dirent *sd, struct dentry *parent);
+extern struct inode * sysfs_drop_dentry(struct sysfs_dirent *sd, struct dentry *parent);
extern int sysfs_setattr(struct dentry *dentry, struct iattr *iattr);
extern struct rw_semaphore sysfs_rename_sem;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/