lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [BUG] kernel 3.1.0 possible circular locking dependency detected
From
Date
On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 08:08 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [ Added a few more people to the cc ]
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:35 AM, Knut Petersen
> <Knut_Petersen@t-online.de> wrote:
> > After a " rm -r /verybigdir" (about 12G on a 25G reiserfs 3.6partition)
> > I found the following report about a circular locking dependency in
> > kernel 3.1.0
>
> Heh. There is even a comment about the ordering violation:
>
> /* We use I_MUTEX_CHILD here to silence lockdep. It's safe because xattr
> * mutation ops aren't called during rename or splace, which are the
> * only other users of I_MUTEX_CHILD. It violates the ordering, but that's
> * better than allocating another subclass just for this code. */
>
> and apparently the comment is wrong: we *do* end up looking up xattrs
> during splice, due to the security_inode_need_killpriv() thing.
>
> So I think this needs a suid (or sgid) file that has xattrs and is removed.
>
> That said, I suspect this is a false positive, because the actual
> unlink can never happen while somebody is splicing to/from the same
> file at the same time (because then the iput wouldn't be the last one
> for the inode, and the file removal would be delayed until the file
> has been closed for the last time).
>
> But the hacky use of "I_MUTEX_CHILD" is basically not the proper way
> to silence the lockdep splat.
>
> Anybody?

I_MUTEX_XATTR sounds like the right nesting for something called
xattr_*() but then, what do I know about filesystems.. Jeff Mahoney
wrote this, Jeff any clue?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-07 18:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans