[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgcy_8snS3znhTB2M_=rDg5gy8bQunKvhLse=AVPp6rOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 14:19:56 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [eventfs] 852e46e239: BUG:unable_to_handle_page_fault_for_address
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 13:45, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 219 deletions(-)
>
> Thanks, much appreciated.
Well, I decided I might as well give it a test-run, and there's an
immediate deadlock on eventfs_mutex, because I missed removing it from
eventfs_find_events() when the callers now already hold it.
So at a minimum, it will require this patch on top:
--- a/fs/tracefs/event_inode.c
+++ b/fs/tracefs/event_inode.c
@@ -230,7 +230,6 @@ static struct eventfs_inode
*eventfs_find_events(
{
struct eventfs_inode *ei;
- mutex_lock(&eventfs_mutex);
do {
// The parent is stable because we do not do renames
dentry = dentry->d_parent;
@@ -247,7 +246,6 @@
}
// Walk upwards until you find the events inode
} while (!ei->is_events);
- mutex_unlock(&eventfs_mutex);
update_top_events_attr(ei, dentry->d_sb);
to not deadlock immediately on the first lookup.
And honestly, there might be other such obvious "I missed that when
reading the code".
Let me reboot into a fixed system and do some more basic smoke-testing.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists