Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 5:53 PM Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Each time dlm_add_cb() queues work or adds the lkb for queuing later to
> the ls->ls_cb_delay list it increments a refcount. However if the work
> is already queued or being added to the list we need to revert the
> incrementation of the refcount. The function dlm_add_cb() can be called
> multiple times without handling the related dlm_callback_work() work
> function where it's get a put call. This patch reverts the kref_get()
> when it's necessary in cases if already queued or not.
>
> In case of dlm_callback_resume() we need to ensure that the
> LSFL_CB_DELAY bit is cleared after all ls->ls_cb_delay lkbs are queued for
> work. As the ls->ls_cb_delay list handling is there for queuing work for
> later it should not be the case that a work was already queued, if so we
> drop a warning.
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/dlm/ast.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dlm/ast.c b/fs/dlm/ast.c
> index 0271796d36b1..68e09ed8234e 100644
> --- a/fs/dlm/ast.c
> +++ b/fs/dlm/ast.c
> @@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ void dlm_add_cb(struct dlm_lkb *lkb, uint32_t flags, int mode, int status,
> {
> struct dlm_ls *ls = lkb->lkb_resource->res_ls;
> uint64_t new_seq, prev_seq;
> + bool queued = true;
> int rv;
>
> spin_lock(&dlm_cb_seq_spin);
> @@ -202,13 +203,19 @@ void dlm_add_cb(struct dlm_lkb *lkb, uint32_t flags, int mode, int status,
>
> mutex_lock(&ls->ls_cb_mutex);
> if (test_bit(LSFL_CB_DELAY, &ls->ls_flags)) {
> - if (list_empty(&lkb->lkb_cb_list))
> + if (list_empty(&lkb->lkb_cb_list)) {
> list_add(&lkb->lkb_cb_list, &ls->ls_cb_delay);
> + queued = false;
> + }
> } else {
> - queue_work(ls->ls_callback_wq, &lkb->lkb_cb_work);
> + queued = !queue_work(ls->ls_callback_wq, &lkb->lkb_cb_work);
> }
> mutex_unlock(&ls->ls_cb_mutex);
> +
> + if (queued)
> + dlm_put_lkb(lkb);
> }
I will drop this patch and 2/3, there is nothing wrong as it does a if
(!prev_seq) before and if (!prev_seq) is true it acts like if it's
already queued for list_add() and queue_work() (I believe)... however
personally, I am not happy with this how it's currently is because
this code smells like it was forgotten to take care about if it's
already queued or not. This is only working because of some other
lkb-specific handling what dlm_add_lkb_callback() and
dlm_callback_work() does regarding lkb->lkb_callbacks[0].seq - if
dlm_add_lkb_callback() would end in an "unlikely" error it would queue
nothing anymore.
Patch 1/3 is still valid and could cause problems.
- Alex
