On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 01:08:07PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (20/12/10 19:48), Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > > > [ 133.454836] Chain exists of: > > > jbd2_handle --> fscrypt_init_mutex --> fs_reclaim > > > > > > [ 133.454840] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > > > > > [ 133.454841] CPU0 CPU1 > > > [ 133.454843] ---- ---- > > > [ 133.454844] lock(fs_reclaim); > > > [ 133.454846] lock(fscrypt_init_mutex); > > > [ 133.454848] lock(fs_reclaim); > > > [ 133.454850] lock(jbd2_handle); > > > [ 133.454851] > > > > This actually got fixed by the patch series > > https://lkml.kernel.org/linux-fscrypt/20200913083620.170627-1-ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > which went into 5.10. The more recent patch to remove ext4_dir_open() isn't > > related. > > > > It's a hard patch series to backport. Backporting it to 5.4 would be somewhat > > feasible, while 4.19 would be very difficult as there have been a lot of other > > fscrypt commits which would heavily conflict with cherry-picks. > > > > How interested are you in having this fixed? Did you encounter an actual > > deadlock or just the lockdep report? > > Difficult to say. On one hand 'yes' I see lockups on my devices (4.19 > kernel); I can't tell at the moment what's the root cause. So on the > other hand 'no' I can't say that it's because of ext4_dir_open(). > > What I saw so far involved ext4, kswapd, khugepaged and lots of other things. > > [ 1598.655901] INFO: task khugepaged:66 blocked for more than 122 seconds. > [ 1598.655914] Call Trace: > [ 1598.655920] __schedule+0x506/0x1240 > [ 1598.655924] ? kvm_zap_rmapp+0x52/0x69 > [ 1598.655927] schedule+0x3f/0x78 > [ 1598.655929] __rwsem_down_read_failed_common+0x186/0x201 > [ 1598.655933] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x14/0x30 > [ 1598.655936] down_read+0x2e/0x45 > [ 1598.655939] rmap_walk_file+0x73/0x1ce > [ 1598.655941] page_referenced+0x10d/0x154 > [ 1598.655948] shrink_active_list+0x1d4/0x475 > > [..] > > [ 1598.655986] INFO: task kswapd0:79 blocked for more than 122 seconds. > [ 1598.655993] Call Trace: > [ 1598.655995] __schedule+0x506/0x1240 > [ 1598.655998] schedule+0x3f/0x78 > [ 1598.656000] __rwsem_down_read_failed_common+0x186/0x201 > [ 1598.656003] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x14/0x30 > [ 1598.656006] down_read+0x2e/0x45 > [ 1598.656008] rmap_walk_file+0x73/0x1ce > [ 1598.656010] page_referenced+0x10d/0x154 > [ 1598.656015] shrink_active_list+0x1d4/0x475 > > [..] > > [ 1598.658233] __rwsem_down_read_failed_common+0x186/0x201 > [ 1598.658235] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x14/0x30 > [ 1598.658238] down_read+0x2e/0x45 > [ 1598.658240] rmap_walk_file+0x73/0x1ce > [ 1598.658242] page_referenced+0x10d/0x154 > [ 1598.658247] shrink_active_list+0x1d4/0x475 > [ 1598.658250] shrink_node+0x27e/0x661 > [ 1598.658254] try_to_free_pages+0x425/0x7ec > [ 1598.658258] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x80b/0x1514 > [ 1598.658279] __do_page_cache_readahead+0xd4/0x1a9 > [ 1598.658282] filemap_fault+0x346/0x573 > [ 1598.658287] ext4_filemap_fault+0x31/0x44 Could you provide some more information about what is causing these actual lockups for you? Are there more stack traces? I'd be surprised if it's related to the fscrypt-related lockdep reports you're getting, as the fscrypt bug seemed unlikely to cause deadlocks in practice, as most of the time fscrypt_get_encryption_info() does *not* do or wait for a GFP_KERNEL allocation. It's only in certain causes (generally, when things are being initialized as opposed to already running) that it could. See e.g. how the lockdep reports assume GFP_KERNEL done under fscrypt_init_mutex, but that only happens the first time an encrypted directory is accessed after boot. So that path can't cause a deadlock after that. This was also a 5 years old bug, so it's unclear why it would suddenly be causing problems just now... Maybe something changed that exposed the bug more. I don't know what it would be, though. As I said, the fix would be difficult to backport. It required a redesign of how encrypted files get created, as there were lots of different ways in which fscrypt_get_encryption_info() could be called during a filesystem transaction. There's a nontrivial risk of regressions by backporting it. (In fact I already found and fixed two regressions in it upstream...) So it would be helpful to know if this is important enough to you that you would be willing to accept a risk of regressions above that of a typical stable backport in order to get the re-design that fixes this issue backported. - Eric
