linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.0 release - btrfs possible locking deadlock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:49:37 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To:	Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.0 release - btrfs possible locking deadlock

Excerpts from Ed Tomlinson's message of 2011-07-22 19:21:00 -0400:
> On Thursday 21 July 2011 22:59:53 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So there it is. Gone are the 2.6.<bignum> days, and 3.0 is out.
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Managed to get this with btrfs rsync(ing) from ext4 to a btrfs fs with three partitions using raid1.
> 
> [16018.211493] device fsid f7186eeb-60df-4b1a-890a-4a1eb42f81fe devid 1 transid 10 /dev/sdd4
> [16018.230643] btrfs: use lzo compression
> [16018.234619] btrfs: enabling disk space caching
> [25949.414011] 
> [25949.414011] =======================================================
> [25949.416549] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [25949.423187] 3.0.0-crc+ #348
> [25949.423187] -------------------------------------------------------
> [25949.423187] rsync/20237 is trying to acquire lock:
> [25949.423187]  (btrfs-extent-01){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa047ce88>] btrfs_try_spin_lock+0x78/0xb0 [btrfs]
> [25949.423187] 
> [25949.423187] but task is already holding lock:
> [25949.423187]  (&(&eb->lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa047cee2>] btrfs_clear_lock_blocking+0x22/0x30 [btrfs]
> [25949.423187] 
> [25949.423187] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> Kernel is 3.0.0 without any extras.
> 
> Ideas?

Did this actually deadlock?  lockdep has issues with the btrfs
clear_lock_blocking code, and I need to redo the annotations a bit.  The
problem is that we have the same lock class representing unrelated locks from
different trees.

-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/