Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 22 Jul 2018 18:08:41 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Junil Lee <junil0814.lee@lge.com>
Cc:     adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, junil0814.lee@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: remove abnormal set for I_DATA_SEM subclass
Message-ID: <20180722220841.GA3358@thunk.org>
Mail-Followup-To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Junil Lee <junil0814.lee@lge.com>, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        junil0814.lee@MIT.EDU
References: <1531123108-45918-1-git-send-email-junil0814.lee@lge.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1531123108-45918-1-git-send-email-junil0814.lee@lge.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 04:58:28PM +0900, Junil Lee wrote:
> The -EBUSY return value of dquot_enable() function means that just
> want to update flags. If some users make a duplicate request to update
> flags, lockdep could catch the false positive casued by needing to
> allocate a quota block from inside ext4_map_blocks(), while holding
> i_data_sem for a data inode. This results in this complaint:
> 
>        CPU0                    CPU1
>        ----                    ----
>   lock(&s->s_dquot.dqio_mutex);
>                                lock(&ei->i_data_sem);
>                                lock(&s->s_dquot.dqio_mutex);
>   lock(&ei->i_data_sem);

How does this happen in practice?  The function ext4_quota_enable() is
only called by ext4_enable_quotas(), and I don't see the code path
where this would happen.  And if it does it would be resulting an
EXT4-fs warning message getting printing indicating that a failure to
enable quotas with an error of EBUSY.  So how does this happen that
"users would make a duplicate request to update flags"?

       	     	    	      	      	 	- Ted