[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130318215333.GE21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:53:34 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, apw@...onical.com, nbd@...nwrt.org,
neilb@...e.de, jordipujolp@...il.com, ezk@....cs.sunysb.edu,
sedat.dilek@...glemail.com, hooanon05@...oo.co.jp, mszeredi@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] vfs: export do_splice_direct() to modules
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> IMO the deadlock is real. In freeze_super() we wait for all writers to
> the filesystem to finish while blocking beginning of any further writes. So
> we have a deadlock scenario like:
>
> THREAD1 THREAD2 THREAD3
> mnt_want_write() mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> ... freeze_super()
> block on mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex)
> sb_wait_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> block in sb_start_write()
The bug is on fsfreeze side and this is not the only problem related to it.
I've missed the implications when I applied "fs: Add freezing handling
to mnt_want_write() / mnt_drop_write()" last June ;-/
The thing is, until then mnt_want_write() used to be a counter; it could be
nested. Now any such nesting is a deadlock you've just described. This
is seriously wrong, IMO.
BTW, having sb_start_write() buried in individual ->splice_write() is
asking for trouble; could you describe the rules for that? E.g. where
does it nest wrt filesystem-private locks? XFS iolock, for example...
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists