Hello all,
(not subscribed, please cc)
I'd like to report a lockdep warning with 2.6.18 while unmounting a
xfs filesystem.
Tested on vanilla 2.6.18, the trace I get is as follows:
[ 9545.550736] =============================================
[ 9545.555027] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 9545.558413] ---------------------------------------------
[ 9545.569664] umount/2057 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 9545.572641] (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<d091c7d5>] xfs_ilock+0x6e/0xd5 [xfs]
[ 9545.585636]
[ 9545.585642] but task is already holding lock:
[ 9545.593578] (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<d091c7d5>] xfs_ilock+0x6e/0xd5 [xfs]
[ 9545.603325]
[ 9545.603330] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 9545.621763] 3 locks held by umount/2057:
[ 9545.633364] #0: (&type->s_umount_key#14){----}, at: [<c0166915>] deactivate_super+0x5e/0x75
[ 9545.660334] #1: (&type->s_lock_key#7){--..}, at: [<c034f9c3>] mutex_lock+0x8/0xa
[ 9545.676017] #2: (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<d091c7d5>] xfs_ilock+0x6e/0xd5 [xfs]
[ 9545.691166]
[ 9545.691170] stack backtrace:
[ 9545.710694] [<c0104cb6>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[ 9545.723104] [<c0104cd1>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1c
[ 9545.730674] [<c0133cd6>] __lock_acquire+0x8ff/0xd05
[ 9545.740433] [<c01343f7>] lock_acquire+0x5c/0x79
[ 9545.747058] [<c0130c26>] down_write+0x2b/0x44
[ 9545.761096] [<d091c7d5>] xfs_ilock+0x6e/0xd5 [xfs]
[ 9545.776963] [<d08e7ab7>] xfs_qm_unmount_quotas+0x5f/0x16c [xfs]
[ 9545.790230] [<d0938955>] xfs_unmount_flush+0x11b/0x14d [xfs]
[ 9545.800454] [<d093a83b>] xfs_unmount+0xca/0x192 [xfs]
[ 9545.819482] [<d094bee9>] vfs_unmount+0x18/0x39 [xfs]
[ 9545.830789] [<d094b19b>] xfs_fs_put_super+0x31/0x70 [xfs]
[ 9545.841637] [<c0166669>] generic_shutdown_super+0x85/0x131
[ 9545.856059] [<c0166735>] kill_block_super+0x20/0x32
[ 9545.865847] [<c016691a>] deactivate_super+0x63/0x75
[ 9545.871602] [<c017a53c>] mntput_no_expire+0x44/0x69
[ 9545.881504] [<c016cd65>] path_release_on_umount+0x15/0x18
[ 9545.899773] [<c017b2d3>] sys_umount+0x3b/0x1f0
[ 9545.906425] [<c017b4a1>] sys_oldumount+0x19/0x1b
[ 9545.916040] [<c0102bdf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
I have added some debugging code that prints xfs_ilock's arguments and
a stack trace if called from xfs_unmount(). The dumps just before the
lockdep warning:
[ 9545.278026] xfs_ilock: ip = cf34bc80, lock_flags = 4
[ 9545.281364] BUG: warning at fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c:851/xfs_ilock()
[ 9545.289024] [<c0104cb6>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[ 9545.292870] [<c0104cd1>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1c
[ 9545.295737] [<d091c837>] xfs_ilock+0xd0/0xd5 [xfs]
[ 9545.299567] [<d0938861>] xfs_unmount_flush+0x27/0x14d [xfs]
[ 9545.303186] [<d093a83b>] xfs_unmount+0xca/0x192 [xfs]
[ 9545.308828] [<d094bee9>] vfs_unmount+0x18/0x39 [xfs]
[ 9545.312102] [<d094b19b>] xfs_fs_put_super+0x31/0x70 [xfs]
[ 9545.315431] [<c0166669>] generic_shutdown_super+0x85/0x131
[ 9545.319170] [<c0166735>] kill_block_super+0x20/0x32
[ 9545.322319] [<c016691a>] deactivate_super+0x63/0x75
[ 9545.338958] [<c017a53c>] mntput_no_expire+0x44/0x69
[ 9545.356379] [<c016cd65>] path_release_on_umount+0x15/0x18
[ 9545.366478] [<c017b2d3>] sys_umount+0x3b/0x1f0
[ 9545.372272] [<c017b4a1>] sys_oldumount+0x19/0x1b
[ 9545.381929] [<c0102bdf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[ 9545.407021] xfs_ilock: ip = cf34ba80, lock_flags = 4
[ 9545.416564] BUG: warning at fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c:851/xfs_ilock()
[ 9545.426716] [<c0104cb6>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[ 9545.432407] [<c0104cd1>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1c
[ 9545.442094] [<d091c837>] xfs_ilock+0xd0/0xd5 [xfs]
[ 9545.456621] [<d08e7ab7>] xfs_qm_unmount_quotas+0x5f/0x16c [xfs]
[ 9545.470647] [<d0938955>] xfs_unmount_flush+0x11b/0x14d [xfs]
[ 9545.480818] [<d093a83b>] xfs_unmount+0xca/0x192 [xfs]
[ 9545.490890] [<d094bee9>] vfs_unmount+0x18/0x39 [xfs]
[ 9545.500808] [<d094b19b>] xfs_fs_put_super+0x31/0x70 [xfs]
[ 9545.513308] [<c0166669>] generic_shutdown_super+0x85/0x131
[ 9545.517250] [<c0166735>] kill_block_super+0x20/0x32
[ 9545.520460] [<c016691a>] deactivate_super+0x63/0x75
[ 9545.523602] [<c017a53c>] mntput_no_expire+0x44/0x69
[ 9545.526630] [<c016cd65>] path_release_on_umount+0x15/0x18
[ 9545.530142] [<c017b2d3>] sys_umount+0x3b/0x1f0
[ 9545.543931] [<c017b4a1>] sys_oldumount+0x19/0x1b
[ 9545.547650] [<c0102bdf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
So these warnings might be bogus as they refer to different `ip'
variables.
In my setup it's 100% reproducible (the first umount after reboot
only, I presume lockdep shuts up afterwards). Has anybody else
noticed this behaviour? I have scanned through the git repository
up to 2.6.19-rc1-gitsomething and couldn't find anything related.
XFS-related .config snippet:
CONFIG_XFS_FS=m
CONFIG_XFS_QUOTA=y
# CONFIG_XFS_SECURITY is not set
CONFIG_XFS_POSIX_ACL=y
# CONFIG_XFS_RT is not set
# CONFIG_VXFS_FS is not set
Best regards,
Grzegorz Nosek
On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 12:28:38PM +0200, NetArt - Grzegorz Nosek wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> (not subscribed, please cc)
>
> I'd like to report a lockdep warning with 2.6.18 while unmounting a
> xfs filesystem.
>
> Tested on vanilla 2.6.18, the trace I get is as follows:
Right now, i don't think it is safe to use lockdep with XFS. We've
just discovered that lockdep can panic the system or cause
use-after-free issues because of the fact that XFS often does not
unlock objects before freeing them. We are working on getting
full lockdep support in XFS, but we are not there yet.
FWIW, this patch might fix the problem you reported.
---
fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
===================================================================
--- 2.6.x-xfs-new.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2006-10-11 14:01:46.000000000 +1000
+++ 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2006-10-12 13:00:55.158588110 +1000
@@ -562,6 +562,7 @@ xfs_ireclaim(xfs_inode_t *ip)
/*
* Free all memory associated with the inode.
*/
+ xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL | XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
xfs_idestroy(ip);
}
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group