linux-kernel - Re: next-20090220: XFS: inconsistent lock state

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]

Message-Id: <B793B976-694B-423B-AAF2-9A622696CC88@sgi.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:45:28 -0600
From:	Felix Blyakher <felixb@....com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
	"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: next-20090220: XFS: inconsistent lock state

On Feb 24, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 08:52:59PM +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
>> 2.6.29-rc5-next-20090220 #2
>> ---------------------------------
>> inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-R} usage.
>> kswapd0/324 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
>> (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){+++++?}, at: [<ffffffff803ca60a>]
>> xfs_ilock+0xaa/0x120
>> {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
>
> That's a false positive.  While the ilock can be taken in reclaim the
> allocation here is done before the inode is added to the inode cache.
>
> The patch below should help avoiding the warning:
>
>
> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
> ===================================================================
> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c	2009-02-24 20:56:00.716027739 +0100
> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c	2009-02-24 20:56:46.089031360 +0100
> @@ -246,9 +246,6 @@ xfs_iget_cache_miss(
> 		goto out_destroy;
>  	}
>
> -	if (lock_flags)
> -		xfs_ilock(ip, lock_flags);
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * Preload the radix tree so we can insert safely under the
>  	 * write spinlock. Note that we cannot sleep inside the preload
> @@ -259,6 +256,15 @@ xfs_iget_cache_miss(
>  		goto out_unlock;

Since we removed call to xfs_ilock() above, this should change
to 'goto out_destroy;'
Otherwise, seems goot to me.

Reviewed-by: Felix Blyakher <felixb@....com>


>
> 	}
>
> +	/*
> +	 * Because the inode hasn't been added to the radix-tree yet it  
> can't
> +	 * be found by another thread, so we can do the non-sleeping lock  
> here.
> +	 */
> +	if (lock_flags) {
> +		if (!xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, lock_flags))
> +			BUG();

>
> +	}
> +
> 	mask = ~(((XFS_INODE_CLUSTER_SIZE(mp) >> mp->m_sb.sb_inodelog)) - 1);
> 	first_index = agino & mask;
> 	write_lock(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
> --
> 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/

--
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/