Re: [PATCH] configfs: Silence lockdep on mkdir(), rmdir() andconfigfs_depend_item()

[Joel Becker]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:40:20PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:29:11 +0100
> Louis Rilling <louis.rilling@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > When attaching default groups (subdirs) of a new group (in mkdir() or
> > in configfs_register()), configfs recursively takes inode's mutexes
> > along the path from the parent of the new group to the default
> > subdirs. This is needed to ensure that the VFS will not race with
> > operations on these sub-dirs. This is safe for the following reasons:
> > 
> > - the VFS allows one to lock first an inode and second one of its
> >   children (The lock subclasses for this pattern are respectively
> >   I_MUTEX_PARENT and I_MUTEX_CHILD);
> > - from this rule any inode path can be recursively locked in
> >   descending order as long as it stays under a single mountpoint and
> >   does not follow symlinks.
> > 
> > Unfortunately lockdep does not know (yet?) how to handle such
> > recursion.
> > 
> > I've tried to use Peter Zijlstra's lock_set_subclass() helper to
> > upgrade i_mutexes from I_MUTEX_CHILD to I_MUTEX_PARENT when we know
> > that we might recursively lock some of their descendant, but this
> > usage does not seem to fit the purpose of lock_set_subclass() because
> > it leads to several i_mutex locked with subclass I_MUTEX_PARENT by
> > the same task.
> > 
> > >From inside configfs it is not possible to serialize those recursive
> > locking with a top-level one, because mkdir() and rmdir() are already
> > called with inodes locked by the VFS. So using some
> > mutex_lock_nest_lock() is not an option.
> > 
> > I am proposing two solutions:
> > 1) one that wraps recursive mutex_lock()s with
> >    lockdep_off()/lockdep_on().
> > 2) (as suggested earlier by Peter Zijlstra) one that puts the
> >    i_mutexes recursively locked in different classes based on their
> >    depth from the top-level config_group created. This
> >    induces an arbitrary limit (MAX_LOCK_DEPTH - 2 == 46) on the
> >    nesting of configfs default groups whenever lockdep is activated
> >    but this limit looks reasonably high. Unfortunately, this alos
> >    isolates VFS operations on configfs default groups from the others
> >    and thus lowers the chances to detect locking issues.
> > 
> > This patch implements solution 1).
> > 
> > Solution 2) looks better from lockdep's point of view, but fails with
> > configfs_depend_item(). This needs to rework the locking
> > scheme of configfs_depend_item() by removing the variable lock recursion
> > depth, and I think that it's doable thanks to the configfs_dirent_lock.
> > For now, let's stick to solution 1).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Louis Rilling <louis.rilling@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  fs/configfs/dir.c |   59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/configfs/dir.c b/fs/configfs/dir.c
> > index 8e93341..9c23583 100644
> > --- a/fs/configfs/dir.c
> > +++ b/fs/configfs/dir.c
> > @@ -553,12 +553,24 @@ static void detach_groups(struct config_group *group)
> >  
> >  		child = sd->s_dentry;
> >  
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Note: we hide this from lockdep since we have no way
> > +		 * to teach lockdep about recursive
> > +		 * I_MUTEX_PARENT -> I_MUTEX_CHILD patterns along a path
> > +		 * in an inode tree, which are valid as soon as
> > +		 * I_MUTEX_PARENT -> I_MUTEX_CHILD is valid from a
> > +		 * parent inode to one of its children.
> > +		 */
> > +		lockdep_off();
> >  		mutex_lock(&child->d_inode->i_mutex);
> > +		lockdep_on();
> >
> > [etc]
> >
> 
> Oh dear, what an unpleasant patch.
> 
> Peter, can this be saved?

	I'd love to see it work within lockdep, but it seems rather
hard, so that's why I recommended Louis cook up this version.  I see you
picked it up in -mm.  Do you want me to push it through ocfs2.git?

Joel


-- 

Life's Little Instruction Book #157 

	"Take time to smell the roses."

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: (650) 506-8127
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/