Trond, in testing unionfs on top of nfs4 in 2.6.30, I get this warning. I
think you need to lock the underlying inode sem around the call to
lookup_one_len.
[ 2173.937471] WARNING: at fs/namei.c:1252 lookup_one_len+0x33/0x74()
[ 2173.937954] Hardware name: VMware Virtual Platform
[ 2173.938332] Modules linked in: unionfs md5 ext4 jbd2 crc16 nfsd exportfs nfs lockd nfs_acl auth_rpcgss sunrpc [last unloaded: unionfs]
[ 2173.938345] Pid: 10640, comm: rm Not tainted 2.6.30-unionfs2 #326
[ 2173.938347] Call Trace:
[ 2173.938362] [<c021df7e>] warn_slowpath_common+0x60/0x77
[ 2173.938367] [<c021dfa2>] warn_slowpath_null+0xd/0x10
[ 2173.938370] [<c026ed93>] lookup_one_len+0x33/0x74
[ 2173.938404] [<f8964506>] ? nfs_sillyrename+0xd5/0x205 [nfs]
[ 2173.938419] [<f8964538>] nfs_sillyrename+0x107/0x205 [nfs]
[ 2173.938434] [<f89656dd>] nfs_unlink+0x74/0x1d0 [nfs]
[ 2173.938437] [<c026e3a6>] vfs_unlink+0x5d/0xab
[ 2173.938454] [<f894f9e2>] do_delete_whiteouts+0x12b/0x1b4 [unionfs]
[ 2173.938463] [<f894fd3d>] delete_whiteouts+0x9b/0xc5 [unionfs]
[ 2173.938470] [<c0238811>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xff/0x120
[ 2173.938474] [<c023883d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
[ 2173.938482] [<f894b128>] ? check_empty+0x222/0x23a [unionfs]
[ 2173.938490] [<f894bf43>] unionfs_rmdir+0xdf/0x415 [unionfs]
[ 2173.938505] [<c03bd700>] ? _spin_unlock+0x27/0x3c
[ 2173.938509] [<c026e815>] vfs_rmdir+0x67/0xa8
[ 2173.938512] [<c026ff6b>] do_rmdir+0x84/0xc3
[ 2173.938516] [<c020289b>] ? sysenter_exit+0xf/0x18
[ 2173.938520] [<c0238811>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xff/0x120
[ 2173.938523] [<c026ffe9>] sys_rmdir+0x10/0x12
[ 2173.938526] [<c0202868>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
[ 2173.938529] ---[ end trace 7364f4a6081197e6 ]---
[ 2177.416172] Completed unionfs module unload
Cheers,
Erez.
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 14:38 -0400, Erez Zadok wrote:
> Trond, in testing unionfs on top of nfs4 in 2.6.30, I get this warning. I
> think you need to lock the underlying inode sem around the call to
> lookup_one_len.
>
> [ 2173.937471] WARNING: at fs/namei.c:1252 lookup_one_len+0x33/0x74()
> [ 2173.937954] Hardware name: VMware Virtual Platform
> [ 2173.938332] Modules linked in: unionfs md5 ext4 jbd2 crc16 nfsd exportfs nfs lockd nfs_acl auth_rpcgss sunrpc [last unloaded: unionfs]
> [ 2173.938345] Pid: 10640, comm: rm Not tainted 2.6.30-unionfs2 #326
> [ 2173.938347] Call Trace:
> [ 2173.938362] [<c021df7e>] warn_slowpath_common+0x60/0x77
> [ 2173.938367] [<c021dfa2>] warn_slowpath_null+0xd/0x10
> [ 2173.938370] [<c026ed93>] lookup_one_len+0x33/0x74
> [ 2173.938404] [<f8964506>] ? nfs_sillyrename+0xd5/0x205 [nfs]
> [ 2173.938419] [<f8964538>] nfs_sillyrename+0x107/0x205 [nfs]
> [ 2173.938434] [<f89656dd>] nfs_unlink+0x74/0x1d0 [nfs]
> [ 2173.938437] [<c026e3a6>] vfs_unlink+0x5d/0xab
> [ 2173.938454] [<f894f9e2>] do_delete_whiteouts+0x12b/0x1b4 [unionfs]
> [ 2173.938463] [<f894fd3d>] delete_whiteouts+0x9b/0xc5 [unionfs]
> [ 2173.938470] [<c0238811>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xff/0x120
> [ 2173.938474] [<c023883d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
> [ 2173.938482] [<f894b128>] ? check_empty+0x222/0x23a [unionfs]
> [ 2173.938490] [<f894bf43>] unionfs_rmdir+0xdf/0x415 [unionfs]
> [ 2173.938505] [<c03bd700>] ? _spin_unlock+0x27/0x3c
> [ 2173.938509] [<c026e815>] vfs_rmdir+0x67/0xa8
> [ 2173.938512] [<c026ff6b>] do_rmdir+0x84/0xc3
> [ 2173.938516] [<c020289b>] ? sysenter_exit+0xf/0x18
> [ 2173.938520] [<c0238811>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xff/0x120
> [ 2173.938523] [<c026ffe9>] sys_rmdir+0x10/0x12
> [ 2173.938526] [<c0202868>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
> [ 2173.938529] ---[ end trace 7364f4a6081197e6 ]---
> [ 2177.416172] Completed unionfs module unload
>
> Cheers,
> Erez.
Hi Erez
Filesystems shouldn't have to take care of locking the parent directory
when unlinking a file; the VFS does that for you.
Cheers
Trond
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
[email protected]
http://www.netapp.com