On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, majianpeng wrote:
> >On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, majianpeng wrote:
> >> [ 1121.231883] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:20
> >> [ 1121.231935] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 9831, name: mv
> >> [ 1121.231971] 1 lock held by mv/9831:
> >> [ 1121.231973] #0: (&(&ci->i_ceph_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at:[<ffffffffa02bbd38>] ceph_getxattr+0x58/0x1d0 [ceph]
> >> [ 1121.231998] CPU: 3 PID: 9831 Comm: mv Not tainted 3.10.0-rc6+ #215
> >> [ 1121.232000] Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By
> >> O.E.M./To be filled by O.E.M., BIOS 080015 11/09/2011
> >> [ 1121.232027] ffff88006d355a80 ffff880092f69ce0 ffffffff8168348c ffff880092f69cf8
> >> [ 1121.232045] ffffffff81070435 ffff88006d355a20 ffff880092f69d20 ffffffff816899ba
> >> [ 1121.232052] 0000000300000004 ffff8800b76911d0 ffff88006d355a20 ffff880092f69d68
> >> [ 1121.232056] Call Trace:
> >> [ 1121.232062] [<ffffffff8168348c>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> >> [ 1121.232067] [<ffffffff81070435>] __might_sleep+0xe5/0x110
> >> [ 1121.232071] [<ffffffff816899ba>] down_read+0x2a/0x98
> >> [ 1121.232080] [<ffffffffa02baf70>] ceph_vxattrcb_layout+0x60/0xf0 [ceph]
> >> [ 1121.232088] [<ffffffffa02bbd7f>] ceph_getxattr+0x9f/0x1d0 [ceph]
> >> [ 1121.232093] [<ffffffff81188d28>] vfs_getxattr+0xa8/0xd0
> >> [ 1121.232097] [<ffffffff8118900b>] getxattr+0xab/0x1c0
> >> [ 1121.232100] [<ffffffff811704f2>] ? final_putname+0x22/0x50
> >> [ 1121.232104] [<ffffffff81155f80>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xb0/0x260
> >> [ 1121.232107] [<ffffffff811704f2>] ? final_putname+0x22/0x50
> >> [ 1121.232110] [<ffffffff8109e63d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> >> [ 1121.232114] [<ffffffff816957a7>] ? sysret_check+0x1b/0x56
> >> [ 1121.232120] [<ffffffff81189c9c>] SyS_fgetxattr+0x6c/0xc0
> >> [ 1121.232125] [<ffffffff81695782>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >> [ 1121.232129] BUG: scheduling while atomic: mv/9831/0x10000002
> >> [ 1121.232154] 1 lock held by mv/9831:
> >> [ 1121.232156] #0: (&(&ci->i_ceph_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at:
> >> [<ffffffffa02bbd38>] ceph_getxattr+0x58/0x1d0 [ceph]
> >>
> >> I think move the ci->i_ceph_lock down is safe because we can't free
> >> ceph_inode_info at there.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <majianpeng@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> fs/ceph/xattr.c | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/ceph/xattr.c b/fs/ceph/xattr.c
> >> index 9b6b2b6..4efde06 100644
> >> --- a/fs/ceph/xattr.c
> >> +++ b/fs/ceph/xattr.c
> >> @@ -675,7 +675,6 @@ ssize_t ceph_getxattr(struct dentry *dentry, const char *name, void *value,
> >> if (!ceph_is_valid_xattr(name))
> >> return -ENODATA;
> >>
> >> - spin_lock(&ci->i_ceph_lock);
> >> dout("getxattr %p ver=%lld index_ver=%lld\n", inode,
> >> ci->i_xattrs.version, ci->i_xattrs.index_version);
> >
> >Unfortunately these intervening lines neext i_ceph_lock to prevent the
> >i_xattrs struct contents from shifting underneath us. It is more
> IMHO,for those line
> > vxattr = ceph_match_vxattr(inode, name);
> > if (vxattr && !(vxattr->exists_cb && !vxattr->exists_cb(ci))) {
> > err = vxattr->getxattr_cb(ci, value, size);
> It's no need to protect by i_ceph_lock.
> Can you expalin in detail?
Oh! You're totally right. I got distracted by the dout() line that
prints i_xattrs.* fields; *that* needs to move that too to stay inside the
lock. Care to update the patch?
Thanks!
sage
> >expensive for the general getxattr case, but a simpler fix is to take
> >map_sem outside of i_ceph_lock.
> [snip]
>
>
> Thanks
> Jianpeng Ma
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
