[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191114093410.15f10eda@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 09:34:10 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Cc: <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
<oleg@...hat.com>, <jack@...e.cz>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<zhengbin13@...wei.com>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
<chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>, <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debugfs: fix potential infinite loop in
debugfs_remove_recursive
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:59:04 +0800
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com> wrote:
> > Have you tried this patch with lockdep enabled and tried to hit this
> > code path?
> >
> >
> You are right, I get the results with lockdep enabled:
That was what I was afraid of :-(
> [ 64.314748] ============================================
> [ 64.315568] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> [ 64.316549] 5.4.0-rc7-dirty #5 Tainted: G O
> [ 64.317398] --------------------------------------------
> [ 64.318230] rmmod/2607 is trying to acquire lock:
>
> The warning will disappeare by adding
> lockdep_set_novalidate_class(&child->d_lock) before calling
> simple_empty(child). But I'm not sure It's the right modfication.
I'm wondering if we should add a simple_empty_unlocked() that does
simple_empty() without taking the lock, to allow us to call
spin_lock_nested() on the child. Of course, I don't know how much
nesting we allow as it calls the nesting too.
This looks to be something that the vfs folks need to look at.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists