On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 1:11 PM <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> > > When ceph releasing the file_lock it will try to get the inode pointer > from the fl->fl_file, which the memory could already be released by > another thread in filp_close(). Because in VFS layer the fl->fl_file > doesn't increase the file's reference counter. > > Will switch to use ceph dedicate lock info to track the inode. > > And in ceph_fl_release_lock() we should skip all the operations if > the fl->fl_u.ceph_fl.fl_inode is not set, which should come from > the request file_lock. And we will set fl->fl_u.ceph_fl.fl_inode when > inserting it to the inode lock list, which is when copying the lock. > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> > URL: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/57986 > Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/ceph/locks.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- > include/linux/fs.h | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ceph/locks.c b/fs/ceph/locks.c > index b191426bf880..cf78608a3f9a 100644 > --- a/fs/ceph/locks.c > +++ b/fs/ceph/locks.c > @@ -34,18 +34,34 @@ static void ceph_fl_copy_lock(struct file_lock *dst, struct file_lock *src) > { > struct inode *inode = file_inode(dst->fl_file); > atomic_inc(&ceph_inode(inode)->i_filelock_ref); > + dst->fl_u.ceph.fl_inode = igrab(inode); > } > > +/* > + * Do not use the 'fl->fl_file' in release function, which > + * is possibly already released by another thread. > + */ > static void ceph_fl_release_lock(struct file_lock *fl) > { > - struct inode *inode = file_inode(fl->fl_file); > - struct ceph_inode_info *ci = ceph_inode(inode); > + struct inode *inode = fl->fl_u.ceph.fl_inode; > + struct ceph_inode_info *ci; > + > + /* > + * If inode is NULL it should be a request file_lock, > + * nothing we can do. > + */ > + if (!inode) > + return; > + > + ci = ceph_inode(inode); > if (atomic_dec_and_test(&ci->i_filelock_ref)) { > /* clear error when all locks are released */ > spin_lock(&ci->i_ceph_lock); > ci->i_ceph_flags &= ~CEPH_I_ERROR_FILELOCK; > spin_unlock(&ci->i_ceph_lock); > } > + fl->fl_u.ceph.fl_inode = NULL; > + iput(inode); > } > > static const struct file_lock_operations ceph_fl_lock_ops = { > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h > index 7b52fdfb6da0..6106374f5257 100644 > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > @@ -1119,6 +1119,9 @@ struct file_lock { > int state; /* state of grant or error if -ve */ > unsigned int debug_id; > } afs; > + struct { > + struct inode *fl_inode; Hi Xiubo, Nit: I think it could be just "inode", without the prefix which is already present in the union field name. Thanks, Ilya
