2023-12-02 10:49:53

by Johannes Berg

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] Revert "debugfs: annotate debugfs handlers vs. removal with lockdep"

From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>

This reverts commit f4acfcd4deb1 ("debugfs: annotate debugfs handlers
vs. removal with lockdep"), it appears to have false positives and
really shouldn't have been in the -rc series with the fixes anyway.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
---
fs/debugfs/file.c | 10 ----------
fs/debugfs/inode.c | 7 -------
fs/debugfs/internal.h | 6 ------
3 files changed, 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/debugfs/file.c b/fs/debugfs/file.c
index a5ade8c16375..5063434be0fc 100644
--- a/fs/debugfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/debugfs/file.c
@@ -108,12 +108,6 @@ int debugfs_file_get(struct dentry *dentry)
kfree(fsd);
fsd = READ_ONCE(dentry->d_fsdata);
}
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
- fsd->lock_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "debugfs:%pd", dentry);
- lockdep_register_key(&fsd->key);
- lockdep_init_map(&fsd->lockdep_map, fsd->lock_name ?: "debugfs",
- &fsd->key, 0);
-#endif
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fsd->cancellations);
mutex_init(&fsd->cancellations_mtx);
}
@@ -132,8 +126,6 @@ int debugfs_file_get(struct dentry *dentry)
if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&fsd->active_users))
return -EIO;

- lock_map_acquire_read(&fsd->lockdep_map);
-
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(debugfs_file_get);
@@ -151,8 +143,6 @@ void debugfs_file_put(struct dentry *dentry)
{
struct debugfs_fsdata *fsd = READ_ONCE(dentry->d_fsdata);

- lock_map_release(&fsd->lockdep_map);
-
if (refcount_dec_and_test(&fsd->active_users))
complete(&fsd->active_users_drained);
}
diff --git a/fs/debugfs/inode.c b/fs/debugfs/inode.c
index e4e7fe1bd9fb..034a617cb1a5 100644
--- a/fs/debugfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/debugfs/inode.c
@@ -243,10 +243,6 @@ static void debugfs_release_dentry(struct dentry *dentry)

/* check it wasn't a dir (no fsdata) or automount (no real_fops) */
if (fsd && fsd->real_fops) {
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
- lockdep_unregister_key(&fsd->key);
- kfree(fsd->lock_name);
-#endif
WARN_ON(!list_empty(&fsd->cancellations));
mutex_destroy(&fsd->cancellations_mtx);
}
@@ -755,9 +751,6 @@ static void __debugfs_file_removed(struct dentry *dentry)
if ((unsigned long)fsd & DEBUGFS_FSDATA_IS_REAL_FOPS_BIT)
return;

- lock_map_acquire(&fsd->lockdep_map);
- lock_map_release(&fsd->lockdep_map);
-
/* if we hit zero, just wait for all to finish */
if (!refcount_dec_and_test(&fsd->active_users)) {
wait_for_completion(&fsd->active_users_drained);
diff --git a/fs/debugfs/internal.h b/fs/debugfs/internal.h
index 0c4c68cf161f..dae80c2a469e 100644
--- a/fs/debugfs/internal.h
+++ b/fs/debugfs/internal.h
@@ -7,7 +7,6 @@

#ifndef _DEBUGFS_INTERNAL_H_
#define _DEBUGFS_INTERNAL_H_
-#include <linux/lockdep.h>
#include <linux/list.h>

struct file_operations;
@@ -25,11 +24,6 @@ struct debugfs_fsdata {
struct {
refcount_t active_users;
struct completion active_users_drained;
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
- struct lockdep_map lockdep_map;
- struct lock_class_key key;
- char *lock_name;
-#endif

/* protect cancellations */
struct mutex cancellations_mtx;
--
2.43.0



2023-12-02 11:34:08

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "debugfs: annotate debugfs handlers vs. removal with lockdep"

On Sat, Dec 02, 2023 at 11:49:37AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
>
> This reverts commit f4acfcd4deb1 ("debugfs: annotate debugfs handlers
> vs. removal with lockdep"), it appears to have false positives and
> really shouldn't have been in the -rc series with the fixes anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/debugfs/file.c | 10 ----------
> fs/debugfs/inode.c | 7 -------
> fs/debugfs/internal.h | 6 ------
> 3 files changed, 23 deletions(-)

Looks good, want me to take this or are you? If you:

Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

thanks,

greg k-h

2023-12-02 12:31:19

by Johannes Berg

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "debugfs: annotate debugfs handlers vs. removal with lockdep"



On 2 December 2023 12:33:57 CET, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Looks good, want me to take this or are you?

Now I don't have anything dependent on it, so I guess it'd make sense if you do.

Thanks!

johannes