Hi Baokun,Thank you for your feedback!
Thanks for catching this!
On 3/7/24 10:52 AM, Gao Xiang wrote:
Hi Baokun,Yeah as Gao Xiang said, this is initially intended to avoid introducing
On 2024/3/7 10:44, Baokun Li wrote:
Lockdep reported the following issue when mounting erofs with aIMHO, in the beginning, I'd like to avoid introducing another fs type
domain_id:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.8.0-rc7-xfstests #521 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
mount/396 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff907a8aaaa0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#50/1){+.+.}-{3:3},
at: alloc_super+0xe3/0x3d0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff907a8aaa90e0 (&type->s_umount_key#50/1){+.+.}-{3:3},
at: alloc_super+0xe3/0x3d0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&type->s_umount_key#50/1);
lock(&type->s_umount_key#50/1);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
2 locks held by mount/396:
#0: ffff907a8aaa90e0 (&type->s_umount_key#50/1){+.+.}-{3:3},
at: alloc_super+0xe3/0x3d0
#1: ffffffffc00e6f28 (erofs_domain_list_lock){+.+.}-{3:3},
at: erofs_fscache_register_fs+0x3d/0x270 [erofs]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 396 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.8.0-rc7-xfstests #521
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x64/0xb0
validate_chain+0x5c4/0xa00
__lock_acquire+0x6a9/0xd50
lock_acquire+0xcd/0x2b0
down_write_nested+0x45/0xd0
alloc_super+0xe3/0x3d0
sget_fc+0x62/0x2f0
vfs_get_super+0x21/0x90
vfs_get_tree+0x2c/0xf0
fc_mount+0x12/0x40
vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x75/0x90
kern_mount+0x24/0x40
erofs_fscache_register_fs+0x1ef/0x270 [erofs]
erofs_fc_fill_super+0x213/0x380 [erofs]
This is because the file_system_type of both erofs and the pseudo-mount
point of domain_id is erofs_fs_type, so two successive calls to
alloc_super() are considered to be using the same lock and trigger the
warning above.
Therefore add a nodev file_system_type named erofs_anon_fs_type to
silence this complaint. In addition, to reduce code coupling, refactor
out the erofs_anon_init_fs_context() and erofs_kill_pseudo_sb() functions
and move the erofs_pseudo_mnt related code to fscache.c.
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx>
for erofs to share (meta)data between filesystems since it will cause
churn, could we use some alternative way to resolve this?
anothoer file_system_type, say erofs_anon_fs_type.
What we need is actually a method of allocating anonymous inode as a
sentinel identifying each blob. There is indeed a global mount, i.e.
anon_inode_mnt, for allocating anonymous inode/file specifically. At
the time the share domain feature is introduced, there's only one
anonymous inode, i.e. anon_inode_inode, and all the allocated anonymous
files are bound to this single anon_inode_inode. Thus we decided to
implement a erofs internal pseudo mount for this usage.
But I noticed that we can now allocate unique anonymous inodes from
anon_inode_mnt since commit e7e832c ("fs: add LSM-supporting anon-inode
interface"), though the new interface is initially for LSM usage.