From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: dsterba@suse.cz, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>,
Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Silence a static checker locking warning
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 18:07:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190211170737.GX2900@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190211163612.GW2900@suse.cz>
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 05:36:13PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 12:02:55PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Back in the day, before commit 0b246afa62b0 ("btrfs: root->fs_info
> > cleanup, add fs_info convenience variables") then we used to take
> > different locks.
>
> Nope, it's the same per-filesystem lock, just the old code got there
> in two different ways (ie. two subvolume roots).
>
> > But now it's just one lock and the static checkers
> > think we can call down_read(&fs_info->subvol_sem); twice in a row which
> > would lead to a deadlock.
>
> Why? It's read side of a semaphore.
>
> > That code is several years old now so presumably both (old_ino ==
> > BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID) and (new_ino == BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID)
> > conditions can't be true at the same time or the bug would have showed
> > up in testing.
>
> Why do you think it's a bug? If you are sure that there's a bug we've
> overlooked, please state it in the changelog, the rationale you've
> provided is very vague.
>
> And I believe also wrong. The rename-exchange cannot work between two
> subvolumes, but we still can cross-rename two subvolumes. In this
> example hierarchy:
>
> /
> - subvol1 (inode number 256, ie. BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID)
> - file1
> - subvol2 (inode number 256, ie. BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID)
> - file2
>
> btrfs_rename_exchange leads to this:
>
> /
> - subvol1
> - file2
> - subvol2
> - file1
>
> There's no common tool that supports renameat2, so I'm using the one
> from fstests/src/renameat2.c to verify that, and it does indeed work as
> expected.
Lockdep was forgiving and did not deadlock, that I would notice while
running the test. There's a warning in the log about the recursive
locking. So we need to add the lock annotation or merge them to a single
location as you suggest.
And also add a test to fstests, as the subvolume related testcases are
completely missing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-11 17:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-09 9:02 [PATCH] btrfs: Silence a static checker locking warning Dan Carpenter
2019-02-11 16:36 ` David Sterba
2019-02-11 17:07 ` David Sterba [this message]
2019-02-11 18:42 ` Dan Carpenter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190211170737.GX2900@twin.jikos.cz \
--to=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
--cc=jeffm@suse.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).