[PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Kirill Tkhai]

Checking for FR_PENDING in fuse_writepage_in_flight() is racy.
It does not guarantee the first request in misc.write.next list
is not in userspace, since there we take fc->lock, while
fuse_dev_do_read() takes fiq->waitq.lock:

fuse_dev_read()                           fuse_writepage_in_flight()
                                            test_bit(FR_PENDING)
  clear_bit(FR_PENDING)
handle old_req->pages[0] in userspace
                                            copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page)
                                            ^^^^^
                                            userspace never sees this pages

The only reliable way to determ, whether we are able to replace
old_req's page, is to completely skip the first request in the list.
This patch makes the function to do that.

Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
---
 fs/fuse/file.c |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
index b52f9baaa3e7..c6650c68b31a 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/file.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
@@ -1740,6 +1740,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
 {
 	struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(new_req->inode);
 	struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(new_req->inode);
+	struct fuse_req *first_req;
 	struct fuse_req *tmp;
 	struct fuse_req *old_req;
 	bool found = false;
@@ -1764,6 +1765,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
 	}
 
 	new_req->num_pages = 1;
+	first_req = old_req;
 	for (tmp = old_req; tmp != NULL; tmp = tmp->misc.write.next) {
 		BUG_ON(tmp->inode != new_req->inode);
 		curr_index = tmp->misc.write.in.offset >> PAGE_SHIFT;
@@ -1773,7 +1775,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
 		}
 	}
 
-	if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && test_bit(FR_PENDING, &old_req->flags)) {
+	if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
 		struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
 
 		copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);

[PATCH 2/2] fuse: Replace page without copying in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Kirill Tkhai]

It looks like we can optimize old_req page replacement
and avoid copying by simple updating the request's page.

Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
---
 fs/fuse/file.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
index c6650c68b31a..83b54b082c86 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/file.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
@@ -1778,7 +1778,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
 	if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
 		struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
 
-		copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
+		swap(old_req->pages[0], page);
 		spin_unlock(&fc->lock);
 
 		dec_wb_stat(&bdi->wb, WB_WRITEBACK);

Re: [PATCH 2/2] fuse: Replace page without copying in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like we can optimize old_req page replacement
> and avoid copying by simple updating the request's page.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
>  fs/fuse/file.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index c6650c68b31a..83b54b082c86 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -1778,7 +1778,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>         if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
>                 struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
>
> -               copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
> +               swap(old_req->pages[0], page);

This would mess up refcounting for all pages involved.   need to swap
with the temp page in new_req.    Fixed version in #for-next.

Thanks,
Miklos

Re: [PATCH 2/2] fuse: Replace page without copying in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Kirill Tkhai]

On 15.01.2019 18:39, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>> It looks like we can optimize old_req page replacement
>> and avoid copying by simple updating the request's page.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/fuse/file.c |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
>> index c6650c68b31a..83b54b082c86 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
>> @@ -1778,7 +1778,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>>         if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
>>                 struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
>>
>> -               copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
>> +               swap(old_req->pages[0], page);
> 
> This would mess up refcounting for all pages involved.   need to swap
> with the temp page in new_req.    Fixed version in #for-next.

You are sure, page is just a simple pointer, not struct **page.
Then we would have had to change fuse_writepage_in_flight() to use ** pointer.

Updated version looks good for me.

Thanks,
Kirill

Re: [PATCH 2/2] fuse: Replace page without copying in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:14 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> On 15.01.2019 18:39, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like we can optimize old_req page replacement
> >> and avoid copying by simple updating the request's page.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
> >> ---
> >>  fs/fuse/file.c |    2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> >> index c6650c68b31a..83b54b082c86 100644
> >> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> >> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> >> @@ -1778,7 +1778,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
> >>         if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
> >>                 struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
> >>
> >> -               copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
> >> +               swap(old_req->pages[0], page);
> >
> > This would mess up refcounting for all pages involved.   need to swap
> > with the temp page in new_req.    Fixed version in #for-next.
>
> You are sure, page is just a simple pointer, not struct **page.
> Then we would have had to change fuse_writepage_in_flight() to use ** pointer.

Using a struct page** would still have been broken, not because of
refcounting, but because of putting the wrong page into the request
(we do the temporary copy to avoid some issues with adding the page
cache page directly into the request)

Thanks,
Miklos

Re: [PATCH 2/2] fuse: Replace page without copying in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Kirill Tkhai]

On 15.01.2019 19:36, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:14 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 15.01.2019 18:39, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 10:46 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It looks like we can optimize old_req page replacement
>>>> and avoid copying by simple updating the request's page.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/fuse/file.c |    2 +-
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
>>>> index c6650c68b31a..83b54b082c86 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
>>>> @@ -1778,7 +1778,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>>>>         if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
>>>>                 struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
>>>>
>>>> -               copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
>>>> +               swap(old_req->pages[0], page);
>>>
>>> This would mess up refcounting for all pages involved.   need to swap
>>> with the temp page in new_req.    Fixed version in #for-next.
>>
>> You are sure, page is just a simple pointer, not struct **page.
>> Then we would have had to change fuse_writepage_in_flight() to use ** pointer.
> 
> Using a struct page** would still have been broken, not because of
> refcounting, but because of putting the wrong page into the request
> (we do the temporary copy to avoid some issues with adding the page
> cache page directly into the request)

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

Kirill

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Kirill Tkhai]

Hi, Miklos,

any comments about this?

On 26.11.2018 12:46, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Checking for FR_PENDING in fuse_writepage_in_flight() is racy.
> It does not guarantee the first request in misc.write.next list
> is not in userspace, since there we take fc->lock, while
> fuse_dev_do_read() takes fiq->waitq.lock:
> 
> fuse_dev_read()                           fuse_writepage_in_flight()
>                                             test_bit(FR_PENDING)
>   clear_bit(FR_PENDING)
> handle old_req->pages[0] in userspace
>                                             copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page)
>                                             ^^^^^
>                                             userspace never sees this pages
> 
> The only reliable way to determ, whether we are able to replace
> old_req's page, is to completely skip the first request in the list.
> This patch makes the function to do that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
> ---
>  fs/fuse/file.c |    4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index b52f9baaa3e7..c6650c68b31a 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -1740,6 +1740,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>  {
>  	struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(new_req->inode);
>  	struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(new_req->inode);
> +	struct fuse_req *first_req;
>  	struct fuse_req *tmp;
>  	struct fuse_req *old_req;
>  	bool found = false;
> @@ -1764,6 +1765,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>  	}
>  
>  	new_req->num_pages = 1;
> +	first_req = old_req;
>  	for (tmp = old_req; tmp != NULL; tmp = tmp->misc.write.next) {
>  		BUG_ON(tmp->inode != new_req->inode);
>  		curr_index = tmp->misc.write.in.offset >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> @@ -1773,7 +1775,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && test_bit(FR_PENDING, &old_req->flags)) {
> +	if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
>  		struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
>  
>  		copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Miklos,
>
> any comments about this?

Is there a reproducer?  ISTR that fsx-linux with mmaps enabled was
good for stressing the writeback_cache code.

Thanks,
Miklos

>
> On 26.11.2018 12:46, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > Checking for FR_PENDING in fuse_writepage_in_flight() is racy.
> > It does not guarantee the first request in misc.write.next list
> > is not in userspace, since there we take fc->lock, while
> > fuse_dev_do_read() takes fiq->waitq.lock:
> >
> > fuse_dev_read()                           fuse_writepage_in_flight()
> >                                             test_bit(FR_PENDING)
> >   clear_bit(FR_PENDING)
> > handle old_req->pages[0] in userspace
> >                                             copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page)
> >                                             ^^^^^
> >                                             userspace never sees this pages
> >
> > The only reliable way to determ, whether we are able to replace
> > old_req's page, is to completely skip the first request in the list.
> > This patch makes the function to do that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/fuse/file.c |    4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > index b52f9baaa3e7..c6650c68b31a 100644
> > --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> > +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > @@ -1740,6 +1740,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
> >  {
> >       struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(new_req->inode);
> >       struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(new_req->inode);
> > +     struct fuse_req *first_req;
> >       struct fuse_req *tmp;
> >       struct fuse_req *old_req;
> >       bool found = false;
> > @@ -1764,6 +1765,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
> >       }
> >
> >       new_req->num_pages = 1;
> > +     first_req = old_req;
> >       for (tmp = old_req; tmp != NULL; tmp = tmp->misc.write.next) {
> >               BUG_ON(tmp->inode != new_req->inode);
> >               curr_index = tmp->misc.write.in.offset >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > @@ -1773,7 +1775,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
> >               }
> >       }
> >
> > -     if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && test_bit(FR_PENDING, &old_req->flags)) {
> > +     if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
> >               struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
> >
> >               copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
> >

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Kirill Tkhai]

On 10.01.2019 14:00, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Miklos,
>>
>> any comments about this?
> 
> Is there a reproducer?  ISTR that fsx-linux with mmaps enabled was
> good for stressing the writeback_cache code.

There is no a reproducer, since I found that by eyes during preparation of another patchset.

>>
>> On 26.11.2018 12:46, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>> Checking for FR_PENDING in fuse_writepage_in_flight() is racy.
>>> It does not guarantee the first request in misc.write.next list
>>> is not in userspace, since there we take fc->lock, while
>>> fuse_dev_do_read() takes fiq->waitq.lock:
>>>
>>> fuse_dev_read()                           fuse_writepage_in_flight()
>>>                                             test_bit(FR_PENDING)
>>>   clear_bit(FR_PENDING)
>>> handle old_req->pages[0] in userspace
>>>                                             copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page)
>>>                                             ^^^^^
>>>                                             userspace never sees this pages
>>>
>>> The only reliable way to determ, whether we are able to replace
>>> old_req's page, is to completely skip the first request in the list.
>>> This patch makes the function to do that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/fuse/file.c |    4 +++-
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
>>> index b52f9baaa3e7..c6650c68b31a 100644
>>> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
>>> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
>>> @@ -1740,6 +1740,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>>>  {
>>>       struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(new_req->inode);
>>>       struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(new_req->inode);
>>> +     struct fuse_req *first_req;
>>>       struct fuse_req *tmp;
>>>       struct fuse_req *old_req;
>>>       bool found = false;
>>> @@ -1764,6 +1765,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>>>       }
>>>
>>>       new_req->num_pages = 1;
>>> +     first_req = old_req;
>>>       for (tmp = old_req; tmp != NULL; tmp = tmp->misc.write.next) {
>>>               BUG_ON(tmp->inode != new_req->inode);
>>>               curr_index = tmp->misc.write.in.offset >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>> @@ -1773,7 +1775,7 @@ static bool fuse_writepage_in_flight(struct fuse_req *new_req,
>>>               }
>>>       }
>>>
>>> -     if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && test_bit(FR_PENDING, &old_req->flags)) {
>>> +     if (old_req->num_pages == 1 && old_req != first_req) {
>>>               struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(page->mapping->host);
>>>
>>>               copy_highpage(old_req->pages[0], page);
>>>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:03 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> On 10.01.2019 14:00, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Miklos,
> >>
> >> any comments about this?
> >
> > Is there a reproducer?  ISTR that fsx-linux with mmaps enabled was
> > good for stressing the writeback_cache code.
>
> There is no a reproducer, since I found that by eyes during preparation of another patchset.

That's good.  It would even better to have a reproducer, but it
doesn't look easy...

Completely redid this and reordered the patchset so this change is
made before the locking changes actually introduce the bug.  See
fuse.git#for-next.

Thanks,
Miklos

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Kirill Tkhai]

On 15.01.2019 18:37, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:03 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10.01.2019 14:00, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Miklos,
>>>>
>>>> any comments about this?
>>>
>>> Is there a reproducer?  ISTR that fsx-linux with mmaps enabled was
>>> good for stressing the writeback_cache code.
>>
>> There is no a reproducer, since I found that by eyes during preparation of another patchset.
> 
> That's good.  It would even better to have a reproducer, but it
> doesn't look easy...
> 
> Completely redid this and reordered the patchset so this change is
> made before the locking changes actually introduce the bug.

Hm, I meant that I found this during preparation of the patchset,
but not that fi->lock patchset introduces the bug. I don't think
the patchset is involved:

1)before we had race, because different locks fc->lock and fiq->waitq.lock
are taken in fuse_dev_read() and fuse_writepage_in_flight();
2)after we have the same race, and the locks are fi->lock and fiq->waitq.lock.

>See fuse.git#for-next.

The renewed patch looks correct for me.

Thanks,
Kirill

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:55 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>
> On 15.01.2019 18:37, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:03 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10.01.2019 14:00, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Miklos,
> >>>>
> >>>> any comments about this?
> >>>
> >>> Is there a reproducer?  ISTR that fsx-linux with mmaps enabled was
> >>> good for stressing the writeback_cache code.
> >>
> >> There is no a reproducer, since I found that by eyes during preparation of another patchset.
> >
> > That's good.  It would even better to have a reproducer, but it
> > doesn't look easy...
> >
> > Completely redid this and reordered the patchset so this change is
> > made before the locking changes actually introduce the bug.
>
> Hm, I meant that I found this during preparation of the patchset,
> but not that fi->lock patchset introduces the bug. I don't think
> the patchset is involved:
>
> 1)before we had race, because different locks fc->lock and fiq->waitq.lock
> are taken in fuse_dev_read() and fuse_writepage_in_flight();
> 2)after we have the same race, and the locks are fi->lock and fiq->waitq.lock.

Ah, so the race was introduced earlier, when fiq->waitq.lock was split
out from fc->lock.

Thanks,
Miklos

Re: [PATCH 1/2] fuse: Fix race in fuse_writepage_in_flight()

[Kirill Tkhai]

On 15.01.2019 19:03, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:55 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 15.01.2019 18:37, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:03 PM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10.01.2019 14:00, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, Miklos,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> any comments about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a reproducer?  ISTR that fsx-linux with mmaps enabled was
>>>>> good for stressing the writeback_cache code.
>>>>
>>>> There is no a reproducer, since I found that by eyes during preparation of another patchset.
>>>
>>> That's good.  It would even better to have a reproducer, but it
>>> doesn't look easy...
>>>
>>> Completely redid this and reordered the patchset so this change is
>>> made before the locking changes actually introduce the bug.
>>
>> Hm, I meant that I found this during preparation of the patchset,
>> but not that fi->lock patchset introduces the bug. I don't think
>> the patchset is involved:
>>
>> 1)before we had race, because different locks fc->lock and fiq->waitq.lock
>> are taken in fuse_dev_read() and fuse_writepage_in_flight();
>> 2)after we have the same race, and the locks are fi->lock and fiq->waitq.lock.
> 
> Ah, so the race was introduced earlier, when fiq->waitq.lock was split
> out from fc->lock.

Yeah, and there was another performer, not me :)