Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:39:12 +1100 | From | Neil Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links |
| |
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:38:48 -0800 Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 02:47:57PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> writes: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 01:42:10PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > >> Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> writes: > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:09:33PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi, > > >> >> I've just spent a while sorting out some lockdep complaints triggered > > >> >> by the recent addition of the "s_active" lockdep annotation in sysfs > > >> >> (commit 846f99749ab68bbc7f75c74fec305de675b1a1bf) > > >> >> > > >> >> Some of them are genuine and I have submitted a fix for those. > > >> >> Some are, I think, debatable and I get to that is a minute. I've > > >> >> submitted a fix for them anyway. > > >> >> But some are to my mind clearly bogus and I'm hoping that can be > > >> >> fixed by the change below (or similar). > > >> >> The 'bogus' ones are triggered by writing to a sysfs attribute file > > >> >> for which the handler tries to delete a symlink from sysfs. > > >> >> This appears to be a recursion on s_active as s_active is held while > > >> >> the handler runs and is again needed to effect the delete. However > > >> >> as the thing being deleted is a symlink, it is very clearly a > > >> >> different object to the thing triggering the delete, so there is no > > >> >> real loop. > > >> >> > > >> >> The following patch splits the lockdep context in two - one for > > >> >> symlink and one for everything else. This removes the apparent loop. > > >> >> (An example report can be seen in > > >> >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15142). > > >> >> > > >> >> The "debatable" dependency loops happen when writing to one attribute > > >> >> causes a different attribute to be deleted. In my (md) case this can > > >> >> actually cause a deadlock as both the attributes take the same lock > > >> >> while the handler is running. This is because deleting the attribute > > >> >> will block until the all accesses of that attribute have completed (I > > >> >> think). > > >> >> However it should be possible to delete a name from sysfs while there > > >> >> are still accesses pending (it works for normal files!!). So if > > >> >> sysfs could be changed to simply unlink the file and leave deletion to > > >> >> happen when the refcount become zero it would certainly make my life > > >> >> a lot easier, and allow the removal of some ugly code from md.c. > > >> >> I don't know sysfs well enough to suggest a patch though. > > >> >> > > >> >> Thanks, > > >> >> NeilBrown > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> commit 2e502cfe444b68f6ef6b8b2abe83b6112564095b > > >> >> Author: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> > > >> >> Date: Wed Feb 10 09:43:45 2010 +1100 > > >> >> > > >> >> sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links for sysfs > > >> >> > > >> >> symlinks and non-symlink is sysfs are very different. > > >> >> A symlink can never be locked (active) while an attribute > > >> >> modification routine is running. So removing symlink from an > > >> >> attribute 'store' routine should be permitted without any lockdep > > >> >> warnings. > > >> >> > > >> >> So split the lockdep context for 's_active' in two, one for symlinks > > >> >> and other for everything else. > > >> >> > > >> >> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> > > >> > > > >> > Nice patch, I'll queue it up for .34. > > >> > > >> Note the patch does not compile with lockdep disabled. > > > > > > Ugh, why not? > > > > > > Neil, care to fix this up? > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC > > -#define sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep(sd) \ > > +#define sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep(sd, type) \ > > do { \ > > static struct lock_class_key __key; \ > > \ > > - lockdep_init_map(&sd->dep_map, "s_active", &__key, 0); \ > > + lockdep_init_map(&sd->dep_map, "s_active_" type, &__key, 0); \ > > } while(0) > > #else > > #define sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep(sd) do {} while(0) > > Got it, I've fixed this by hand. > >
Thanks. I hadn't sent you a fix myself (As requested) as I got the impression from the following discussion that a different approach would be taken.
I'm happy either way though.
Thanks, NeilBrown
| |