Re: fs: lockup on rename_mutex in fs/dcache.c:1035

[Al Viro]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 09:39:23PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> [ 6172.870045] trinity-c55/12752 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 6172.870045] (rename_lock){+.+...}, at: d_walk (include/linux/spinlock.h:309 fs/dcache.c:1035)
> [ 6172.870045]
> [ 6172.870045] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 6172.870045] (rename_lock){+.+...}, at: d_walk (include/linux/spinlock.h:309 fs/dcache.c:1035)

Umm...  So we either have left d_walk() without dropping rename_lock, or
we have called d_walk() from something called from d_walk()?  And the
trace would seem to point towards the former...

Ouch.  For that to happen, we would need to
	* get to rename_retry with retry being true
	* after that get D_WALK_NORETRY from enter()
	* somehow get to rename_retry *again*

Moreover, we couldn't get there via
        if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq)) {
                spin_unlock(&this_parent->d_lock);
                goto rename_retry;
- seq is 1 by that point, and need_seqretry() returns 0 in that case.  IOW,
it must have been this:
                /*
                 * might go back up the wrong parent if we have had a rename
                 * or deletion
                 */
                if (this_parent != child->d_parent ||
                         (child->d_flags & DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED) ||
                         need_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq)) {
                        spin_unlock(&this_parent->d_lock);
                        rcu_read_unlock();
                        goto rename_retry;
                }
And we had been holding rename_lock in that walk, so d_move() should've
been excluded...  Which leaves us with
                         (child->d_flags & DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED)
being true...  Hrm.  AFAICS, it *is* possible to hit that one - just have
the last reference to child dropped between
                spin_unlock(&child->d_lock);
and
                spin_lock(&this_parent->d_lock);
a few lines above.  And yes, if that happens we are in shit - rename_retry
will see retry being false and return, without noticing that on this pass
we had been holding rename_lock.  Easily fixed, fortunately - delta below
ought to take care of that...

Comments?  AFAICS, it's -stable fodder, the bug going all way back to
at least 3.7...

diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index 3ffef7f..65f4aff 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -1114,12 +1114,13 @@ resume:
 
 out_unlock:
 	spin_unlock(&this_parent->d_lock);
+out:
 	done_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq);
 	return;
 
 rename_retry:
 	if (!retry)
-		return;
+		goto out;
 	seq = 1;
 	goto again;
 }
--
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/