Re: [PATCH] debugfs: fix potential infinite loop in debugfs_remove_recursive
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Thu Nov 14 2019 - 20:53:16 EST
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 09:47:38 +0800
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2019/11/14 22:34, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:59:04 +0800
> > "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>> Have you tried this patch with lockdep enabled and tried to hit this
> >>> code path?
> >>>
> >
> >>>
> >> You are right, I get the results with lockdep enabled:
> >
> > That was what I was afraid of :-(
> >
> >> [ 64.314748] ============================================
> >> [ 64.315568] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> >> [ 64.316549] 5.4.0-rc7-dirty #5 Tainted: G O
> >> [ 64.317398] --------------------------------------------
> >> [ 64.318230] rmmod/2607 is trying to acquire lock:
> >
> >>
> >> The warning will disappeare by adding
> >> lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&child->d_lock) before calling
> >> simple_empty(child). But I'm not sure It's the right modfication.
> >
> > I'm wondering if we should add a simple_empty_unlocked() that does
> > simple_empty() without taking the lock, to allow us to call
> > spin_lock_nested() on the child. Of course, I don't know how much
> > nesting we allow as it calls the nesting too.
> Do you think we can do this:
> 1. add a new enum type for dentry_d_lock_class:
> enum dentry_d_lock_class
> {
> DENTRY_D_LOCK_NORMAL, /* implicitly used by plain spin_lock() APIs. */
> DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED
> DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED_1 /* maybe another name */
> };
> 2. use the new enum type in simple_empty
> int simple_empty(struct dentry *dentry)
> {
> spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
> list_for_each_entry(child, &dentry->d_subdirs, d_child) {
> spin_lock_nested(&child->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED_1);
> }
>
> If you agree, I'll try to send a patch or patchset(with modification in
> debugfs_remove_recursive).
>
It sounds fine to me, but I think the decision needs to be with the
debugfs and vfs maintainers.
-- Steve