diff options
| author | Josh Cartwright <joshc@linux.com> | 2012-03-29 19:34:53 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> | 2012-05-20 22:56:41 +0100 |
| commit | 5a6cc206dfa8de733e848590b43d30706216733c (patch) | |
| tree | f0aa71b26634a22be040feffa7ee1fc24e286779 | |
| parent | b324755c58b3b982cce5dba55e0e83d97d7e6a0a (diff) | |
jffs2: Fix lock acquisition order bug in gc path
commit 226bb7df3d22bcf4a1c0fe8206c80cc427498eae upstream.
The locking policy is such that the erase_complete_block spinlock is
nested within the alloc_sem mutex. This fixes a case in which the
acquisition order was erroneously reversed. This issue was caught by
the following lockdep splat:
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.0.5 #1
-------------------------------------------------------
jffs2_gcd_mtd6/299 is trying to acquire lock:
(&c->alloc_sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<c01f7714>] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x314/0x890
but task is already holding lock:
(&(&c->erase_completion_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<c01f7708>] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x308/0x890
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&(&c->erase_completion_lock)->rlock){+.+...}:
[<c008bec4>] validate_chain+0xe6c/0x10bc
[<c008c660>] __lock_acquire+0x54c/0xba4
[<c008d240>] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x114
[<c046780c>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3c/0x4c
[<c01f744c>] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x4c/0x890
[<c01f937c>] jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x1b4/0x1cc
[<c0071a68>] kthread+0x98/0xa0
[<c000f264>] kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8
-> #0 (&c->alloc_sem){+.+.+.}:
[<c008ad2c>] print_circular_bug+0x70/0x2c4
[<c008c08c>] validate_chain+0x1034/0x10bc
[<c008c660>] __lock_acquire+0x54c/0xba4
[<c008d240>] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x114
[<c0466628>] mutex_lock_nested+0x74/0x33c
[<c01f7714>] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x314/0x890
[<c01f937c>] jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x1b4/0x1cc
[<c0071a68>] kthread+0x98/0xa0
[<c000f264>] kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&(&c->erase_completion_lock)->rlock);
lock(&c->alloc_sem);
lock(&(&c->erase_completion_lock)->rlock);
lock(&c->alloc_sem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by jffs2_gcd_mtd6/299:
#0: (&(&c->erase_completion_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<c01f7708>] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x308/0x890
stack backtrace:
[<c00155dc>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x100) from [<c0463dc0>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<c0463dc0>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<c008ae84>] (print_circular_bug+0x1c8/0x2c4)
[<c008ae84>] (print_circular_bug+0x1c8/0x2c4) from [<c008c08c>] (validate_chain+0x1034/0x10bc)
[<c008c08c>] (validate_chain+0x1034/0x10bc) from [<c008c660>] (__lock_acquire+0x54c/0xba4)
[<c008c660>] (__lock_acquire+0x54c/0xba4) from [<c008d240>] (lock_acquire+0xa4/0x114)
[<c008d240>] (lock_acquire+0xa4/0x114) from [<c0466628>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x74/0x33c)
[<c0466628>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x74/0x33c) from [<c01f7714>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x314/0x890)
[<c01f7714>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x314/0x890) from [<c01f937c>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x1b4/0x1cc)
[<c01f937c>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x1b4/0x1cc) from [<c0071a68>] (kthread+0x98/0xa0)
[<c0071a68>] (kthread+0x98/0xa0) from [<c000f264>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
This was introduce in '81cfc9f jffs2: Fix serious write stall due to erase'.
Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright <joshc@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
[bwh: Backported to 3.2: adjust context]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
| -rw-r--r-- | fs/jffs2/gc.c | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/fs/jffs2/gc.c b/fs/jffs2/gc.c index 31dce611337..4bbd5211bb3 100644 --- a/fs/jffs2/gc.c +++ b/fs/jffs2/gc.c @@ -225,8 +225,8 @@ int jffs2_garbage_collect_pass(struct jffs2_sb_info *c) return 0; D1(printk(KERN_DEBUG "No progress from erasing blocks; doing GC anyway\n")); - spin_lock(&c->erase_completion_lock); mutex_lock(&c->alloc_sem); + spin_lock(&c->erase_completion_lock); } /* First, work out which block we're garbage-collecting */ |