The patch titled
Subject: ocfs2: ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker does not distinguish lock level
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
ocfs2-ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker-does-not-distinguish-lock-level.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/ocfs2-ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker-does-not-distinguish-lock-level.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/ocfs2-ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker-does-not-distinguish-lock-level.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Chen <lchen@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: ocfs2: ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker does not distinguish lock level
ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker as a variant of ocfs2_inode_lock, is used to
prevent deadlock due to recursive lock acquisition.
But this function does not distinguish whether the requested level is EX
or PR.
If a RP lock has been attained, this function will immediately return
success afterwards even an EX lock is requested.
But actually the return value does not mean that the process got a EX
lock, because ocfs2_inode_lock has not been called.
When taking lock levels into account, we face some different situations:
1. no lock is held
In this case, just lock the inode and return 0
2. We are holding a lock
For this situation, things diverges into several cases
wanted holding what to do
ex ex see 2.1 below
ex pr see 2.2 below
pr ex see 2.1 below
pr pr see 2.1 below
2.1 lock level that is been held is compatible
with the wanted level, so no lock action will be tacken.
2.2 Otherwise, an upgrade is needed, but it is forbidden.
Reason why upgrade within a process is forbidden is that lock upgrade may
cause dead lock. The following illustrate how it happens.
process 1 process 2
ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(ex=0)
<====== ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(ex=1)
ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(ex=1)
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180510053230.17217-1-lchen@xxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Larry Chen <lchen@xxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Gang He <ghe@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mark@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joel Becker <jlbec@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joseph Qi <jiangqi903@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Changwei Ge <ge.changwei@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 119 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h | 1
2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff -puN fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c~ocfs2-ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker-does-not-distinguish-lock-level fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c~ocfs2-ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker-does-not-distinguish-lock-level
+++ a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c
@@ -788,35 +788,34 @@ static inline void ocfs2_add_holder(stru
spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
}
-static inline void ocfs2_remove_holder(struct ocfs2_lock_res *lockres,
- struct ocfs2_lock_holder *oh)
-{
- spin_lock(&lockres->l_lock);
- list_del(&oh->oh_list);
- spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
-
- put_pid(oh->oh_owner_pid);
-}
-
-static inline int ocfs2_is_locked_by_me(struct ocfs2_lock_res *lockres)
+static struct ocfs2_lock_holder *
+ocfs2_pid_holder(struct ocfs2_lock_res *lockres,
+ struct pid *pid)
{
struct ocfs2_lock_holder *oh;
- struct pid *pid;
- /* look in the list of holders for one with the current task as owner */
spin_lock(&lockres->l_lock);
- pid = task_pid(current);
list_for_each_entry(oh, &lockres->l_holders, oh_list) {
if (oh->oh_owner_pid == pid) {
spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
- return 1;
+ return oh;
}
}
spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
+ return NULL;
+}
- return 0;
+static inline void ocfs2_remove_holder(struct ocfs2_lock_res *lockres,
+ struct ocfs2_lock_holder *oh)
+{
+ spin_lock(&lockres->l_lock);
+ list_del(&oh->oh_list);
+ spin_unlock(&lockres->l_lock);
+
+ put_pid(oh->oh_owner_pid);
}
+
static inline void ocfs2_inc_holders(struct ocfs2_lock_res *lockres,
int level)
{
@@ -2610,34 +2609,93 @@ void ocfs2_inode_unlock(struct inode *in
*
* return < 0 on error, return == 0 if there's no lock holder on the stack
* before this call, return == 1 if this call would be a recursive locking.
+ * return == -1 if this lock attempt will cause an upgrade which is forbidden.
+ *
+ * When taking lock levels into account,we face some different situations.
+ *
+ * 1. no lock is held
+ * In this case, just lock the inode as requested and return 0
+ *
+ * 2. We are holding a lock
+ * For this situation, things diverges into several cases
+ *
+ * wanted holding what to do
+ * ex ex see 2.1 below
+ * ex pr see 2.2 below
+ * pr ex see 2.1 below
+ * pr pr see 2.1 below
+ *
+ * 2.1 lock level that is been held is compatible
+ * with the wanted level, so no lock action will be tacken.
+ *
+ * 2.2 Otherwise, an upgrade is needed, but it is forbidden.
+ *
+ * Reason why upgrade within a process is forbidden is that
+ * lock upgrade may cause dead lock. The following illustrates
+ * how it happens.
+ *
+ * thread on node1 thread on node2
+ * ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(ex=0)
+ *
+ * <====== ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(ex=1)
+ *
+ * ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(ex=1)
*/
int ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker(struct inode *inode,
struct buffer_head **ret_bh,
int ex,
struct ocfs2_lock_holder *oh)
{
- int status;
- int arg_flags = 0, has_locked;
+ int status = 0;
struct ocfs2_lock_res *lockres;
+ struct ocfs2_lock_holder *tmp_oh;
+ struct pid *pid = task_pid(current);
+
lockres = &OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_inode_lockres;
- has_locked = ocfs2_is_locked_by_me(lockres);
- /* Just get buffer head if the cluster lock has been taken */
- if (has_locked)
- arg_flags = OCFS2_META_LOCK_GETBH;
+ tmp_oh = ocfs2_pid_holder(lockres, pid);
- if (likely(!has_locked || ret_bh)) {
- status = ocfs2_inode_lock_full(inode, ret_bh, ex, arg_flags);
+ if (!tmp_oh) {
+ /*
+ * This corresponds to the case 1.
+ * We haven't got any lock before.
+ */
+ status = ocfs2_inode_lock_full(inode, ret_bh, ex, 0);
if (status < 0) {
if (status != -ENOENT)
mlog_errno(status);
return status;
}
- }
- if (!has_locked)
+
+ oh->oh_ex = ex;
ocfs2_add_holder(lockres, oh);
+ return 0;
+ }
- return has_locked;
+ if (unlikely(ex && !tmp_oh->oh_ex)) {
+ /*
+ * case 2.2 upgrade may cause dead lock, forbid it.
+ */
+ mlog(ML_ERROR, "Recursive locking is not permitted to "
+ "upgrade to EX level from PR level.\n");
+ dump_stack();
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * case 2.1 OCFS2_META_LOCK_GETBH flag make ocfs2_inode_lock_full.
+ * ignore the lock level and just update it.
+ */
+ if (ret_bh) {
+ status = ocfs2_inode_lock_full(inode, ret_bh, ex,
+ OCFS2_META_LOCK_GETBH);
+ if (status < 0) {
+ if (status != -ENOENT)
+ mlog_errno(status);
+ return status;
+ }
+ }
+ return tmp_oh ? 1 : 0;
}
void ocfs2_inode_unlock_tracker(struct inode *inode,
@@ -2649,12 +2707,13 @@ void ocfs2_inode_unlock_tracker(struct i
lockres = &OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_inode_lockres;
/* had_lock means that the currect process already takes the cluster
- * lock previously. If had_lock is 1, we have nothing to do here, and
- * it will get unlocked where we got the lock.
+ * lock previously.
+ * If had_lock is 1, we have nothing to do here.
+ * If had_lock is 0, we will release the lock.
*/
if (!had_lock) {
+ ocfs2_inode_unlock(inode, oh->oh_ex);
ocfs2_remove_holder(lockres, oh);
- ocfs2_inode_unlock(inode, ex);
}
}
diff -puN fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h~ocfs2-ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker-does-not-distinguish-lock-level fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h
--- a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h~ocfs2-ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker-does-not-distinguish-lock-level
+++ a/fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h
@@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ struct ocfs2_trim_fs_info {
struct ocfs2_lock_holder {
struct list_head oh_list;
struct pid *oh_owner_pid;
+ int oh_ex;
};
/* ocfs2_inode_lock_full() 'arg_flags' flags */
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from lchen@xxxxxxxx are
ocfs2-ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker-does-not-distinguish-lock-level.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
