[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171007115640.w3m6vxxrglcbeutl@esperanza>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 14:56:40 +0300
From: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@....com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
torbjorn.lindh@...ta.se, rgooch@...f.csiro.au,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] fs/super: a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in put_super
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 11:06:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 06-10-17 16:59:18, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> > According to fs/super.c, the kernel may sleep under a spinlock.
> > The function call path is:
> > put_super (acquire the spinlock)
> > __put_super
> > destroy_super
> > list_lru_destroy
> > list_lru_unregister
> > mutex_lock --> may sleep
> > memcg_get_cache_ids
> > down_read --> may sleep
> >
> > This bug is found by my static analysis tool and my code review.
This is false-positive: by the time we get to destroy_super(), the lru
lists have already been destroyed - see deactivate_locked_super() - so
list_lru_destroy() will retrun right away without attempting to take any
locks. That's why there's no lockdep warnings regarding this issue.
I think we can move list_lru_destroy() to destroy_super_work() to
suppress this warning. Not sure if it's really worth the trouble though.
Thanks,
Vladimir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists