Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-95717-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <60c18887-db8a-42a8-8a04-ef9d17263b15@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:18:36 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] erofs: fix lockdep false positives on initializing
 erofs_pseudo_mnt
To: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: xiang@kernel.org, chao@kernel.org, huyue2@coolpad.com,
 jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yangerkun@huawei.com, houtao1@huawei.com,
 yukuai3@huawei.com, chengzhihao1@huawei.com
References: <20240307101018.2021925-1-libaokun1@huawei.com>
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240307101018.2021925-1-libaokun1@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024/3/7 18:10, Baokun Li wrote:
> Lockdep reported the following issue when mounting erofs with a domain_id:
> 
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 6.8.0-rc7-xfstests #521 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> mount/396 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff907a8aaaa0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#50/1){+.+.}-{3:3},
> 						at: alloc_super+0xe3/0x3d0
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff907a8aaa90e0 (&type->s_umount_key#50/1){+.+.}-{3:3},
> 						at: alloc_super+0xe3/0x3d0
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
>   Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>         CPU0
>         ----
>    lock(&type->s_umount_key#50/1);
>    lock(&type->s_umount_key#50/1);
> 
>   *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
>   May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> 
> 2 locks held by mount/396:
>   #0: ffff907a8aaa90e0 (&type->s_umount_key#50/1){+.+.}-{3:3},
> 			at: alloc_super+0xe3/0x3d0
>   #1: ffffffffc00e6f28 (erofs_domain_list_lock){+.+.}-{3:3},
> 			at: erofs_fscache_register_fs+0x3d/0x270 [erofs]
> 
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 1 PID: 396 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.8.0-rc7-xfstests #521
> Call Trace:
>   <TASK>
>   dump_stack_lvl+0x64/0xb0
>   validate_chain+0x5c4/0xa00
>   __lock_acquire+0x6a9/0xd50
>   lock_acquire+0xcd/0x2b0
>   down_write_nested+0x45/0xd0
>   alloc_super+0xe3/0x3d0
>   sget_fc+0x62/0x2f0
>   vfs_get_super+0x21/0x90
>   vfs_get_tree+0x2c/0xf0
>   fc_mount+0x12/0x40
>   vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x75/0x90
>   kern_mount+0x24/0x40
>   erofs_fscache_register_fs+0x1ef/0x270 [erofs]
>   erofs_fc_fill_super+0x213/0x380 [erofs]
> 
> This is because the file_system_type of both erofs and the pseudo-mount
> point of domain_id is erofs_fs_type, so two successive calls to
> alloc_super() are considered to be using the same lock and trigger the
> warning above.
> 
> Therefore add a nodev file_system_type called erofs_anon_fs_type in
> fscache.c to silence this complaint. Because kern_mount() takes a
> pointer to struct file_system_type, not its (string) name. So we don't
> need to call register_filesystem(). In addition, call init_pseudo() in
> erofs_anon_init_fs_context() as suggested by Al Viro, so that we can
> remove erofs_fc_fill_pseudo_super(), erofs_fc_anon_get_tree(), and
> erofs_anon_context_ops.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>

I will add

Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

when applying..

Also since it's a false positive and too close to the
final so let's keep this patch in -next for a while and
then aim for v6.9-rc1 instead.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang