Re: [PATCH] ocfs2/dlm: fix race between purge and get lock resource

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

 



On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 15:05:15 +0800 Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There is a race between purge and get lock resource, which will lead to
> ast unfinished and system hung. The case is described below:
> 
> mkdir                                  dlm_thread
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> o2cb_dlm_lock                        |
> -> dlmlock                           |
>   -> dlm_get_lock_resource           |
>     -> __dlm_lookup_lockres_full     |
>       -> spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock) |
>                                      | dlm_run_purge_list
>                                      | -> dlm_purge_lockres
>                                      |   -> dlm_drop_lockres_ref
>                                      |   -> spin_lock(&dlm->spinlock)
>                                      |   -> spin_lock(&res->spinlock)
>                                      |   -> ~DLM_LOCK_RES_DROPPING_REF
>                                      |   -> spin_unlock(&res->spinlock)
>                                      |   -> spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock)
>       -> spin_lock(&tmpres->spinlock)|
>       DLM_LOCK_RES_DROPPING_REF cleared |
>       -> spin_unlock(&tmpres->spinlock) |
>       return the purged lockres         |
> 
> So after this, once ast comes, it will ingore the ast because the
> lockres cannot be found anymore. Thus the OCFS2_LOCK_BUSY won't be
> cleared and corresponding thread hangs.
> The &dlm->spinlock was hold when checking DLM_LOCK_RES_DROPPING_REF at
> the very begining. And commit 7b791d6856 (ocfs2/dlm: Fix race during
> lockres mastery) moved it up because of the possible wait.
> So take the &dlm->spinlock and introduce a new wait function to fix the
> race.
> 
> ...
>
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmthread.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmthread.c
> @@ -77,6 +77,29 @@ repeat:
>  	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>  }
> 
> +void __dlm_wait_on_lockres_flags_new(struct dlm_ctxt *dlm,
> +		struct dlm_lock_resource *res, int flags)
> +{
> +	DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
> +
> +	assert_spin_locked(&dlm->spinlock);
> +	assert_spin_locked(&res->spinlock);

Not strictly needed - lockdep will catch this.   A minor thing.

> +	add_wait_queue(&res->wq, &wait);
> +repeat:
> +	set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> +	if (res->state & flags) {
> +		spin_unlock(&res->spinlock);
> +		spin_unlock(&dlm->spinlock);
> +		schedule();
> +		spin_lock(&dlm->spinlock);
> +		spin_lock(&res->spinlock);
> +		goto repeat;
> +	}
> +	remove_wait_queue(&res->wq, &wait);
> +	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +}

This is pretty nasty.  Theoretically this could spin forever, if other
tasks are setting the flag in a suitably synchronized fashion.

Is there no clean approach?  A reorganization of the locking?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]