Re: WARNING: possible recursive locking detected in mnt_want_write/mnt_want_write_file_path

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:29 AM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Cc: linux-unionfs@vger
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I noticed this warning since we moved to 4.18. It appears when
>> > using Docker (which uses overlayfs). Is this a known issue?
>> >
>> > [  543.235366] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
>> > [  543.240747] 4.18.14 #1 Not tainted
>> > [  543.244195] --------------------------------------------
>> > [  543.249573] dockerd/522 is trying to acquire lock:
>> > [  543.254426] 86b0f89c (sb_writers#7){.+.+}, at: mnt_want_write+0x20/0x4c
>> > [  543.261152] but task is already holding lock:
>> > [  543.267053] 86b0f89c (sb_writers#7){.+.+}, at: mnt_want_write_file_path+0x24/0x54
>> > [  543.274641] other info that might help us debug this:
>> > [  543.281242]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> > [  543.287227]        CPU0
>> > [  543.289706]        ----
>> > [  543.292183]   lock(sb_writers#7);
>> > [  543.295547]   lock(sb_writers#7);
>> > [  543.298912]  *** DEADLOCK ***
>> > [  543.306825]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>> > [  543.315594] 2 locks held by dockerd/522:
>> > [  543.320487]  #0: 86b0f89c (sb_writers#7){.+.+}, at: mnt_want_write_file_path+0x24/0x54
>> > [  543.330353]  #1: fbe4681b (&ovl_i_mutex_key[depth]){+.+.}, at: chown_common+0xf8/0x1c0
>
> This is a stable tree regression because upstream commit
> a6795a585929 vfs: fix freeze protection in mnt_want_write_file() for overlayfs
>
> SHOULD NOT have been applied to kernel <= 4.18
>
> Miklos,
>
> You must have confused "the algorithm" by including a "fix" commit in
> rc1 pull request
> without mentioning that it "Fixes" a commit in the same pull request.

I didn't know there were heuristics other than "Cc: stable@.."

> It probably didn't help that the commit applied cleanly to the wrong
> function :-/

Heh...

Thanks,
Miklos



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux