[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160214222218.442491511@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:20:43 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Jiufei Xue <xuejiufei@...wei.com>,
Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...wei.com>,
Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.de>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.3 036/200] ocfs2/dlm: ignore cleaning the migration mle that is inuse
4.3-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: xuejiufei <xuejiufei@...wei.com>
commit bef5502de074b6f6fa647b94b73155d675694420 upstream.
We have found that migration source will trigger a BUG that the refcount
of mle is already zero before put when the target is down during
migration. The situation is as follows:
dlm_migrate_lockres
dlm_add_migration_mle
dlm_mark_lockres_migrating
dlm_get_mle_inuse
<<<<<< Now the refcount of the mle is 2.
dlm_send_one_lockres and wait for the target to become the
new master.
<<<<<< o2hb detect the target down and clean the migration
mle. Now the refcount is 1.
dlm_migrate_lockres woken, and put the mle twice when found the target
goes down which trigger the BUG with the following message:
"ERROR: bad mle: ".
Signed-off-by: Jiufei Xue <xuejiufei@...wei.com>
Reviewed-by: Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...wei.com>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@...e.de>
Cc: Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
Cc: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmmaster.c | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmmaster.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmmaster.c
@@ -2519,6 +2519,11 @@ static int dlm_migrate_lockres(struct dl
spin_lock(&dlm->master_lock);
ret = dlm_add_migration_mle(dlm, res, mle, &oldmle, name,
namelen, target, dlm->node_num);
+ /* get an extra reference on the mle.
+ * otherwise the assert_master from the new
+ * master will destroy this.
+ */
+ dlm_get_mle_inuse(mle);
spin_unlock(&dlm->master_lock);
spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock);
@@ -2554,6 +2559,7 @@ fail:
if (mle_added) {
dlm_mle_detach_hb_events(dlm, mle);
dlm_put_mle(mle);
+ dlm_put_mle_inuse(mle);
} else if (mle) {
kmem_cache_free(dlm_mle_cache, mle);
mle = NULL;
@@ -2571,17 +2577,6 @@ fail:
* ensure that all assert_master work is flushed. */
flush_workqueue(dlm->dlm_worker);
- /* get an extra reference on the mle.
- * otherwise the assert_master from the new
- * master will destroy this.
- * also, make sure that all callers of dlm_get_mle
- * take both dlm->spinlock and dlm->master_lock */
- spin_lock(&dlm->spinlock);
- spin_lock(&dlm->master_lock);
- dlm_get_mle_inuse(mle);
- spin_unlock(&dlm->master_lock);
- spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock);
-
/* notify new node and send all lock state */
/* call send_one_lockres with migration flag.
* this serves as notice to the target node that a
@@ -3310,6 +3305,15 @@ top:
mle->new_master != dead_node)
continue;
+ if (mle->new_master == dead_node && mle->inuse) {
+ mlog(ML_NOTICE, "%s: target %u died during "
+ "migration from %u, the MLE is "
+ "still keep used, ignore it!\n",
+ dlm->name, dead_node,
+ mle->master);
+ continue;
+ }
+
/* If we have reached this point, this mle needs to be
* removed from the list and freed. */
dlm_clean_migration_mle(dlm, mle);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists