From: Josh Cartwright Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 23:34:53 +0000 (-0400) Subject: jffs2: Fix lock acquisition order bug in gc path X-Git-Tag: v3.3.7~25 X-Git-Url: https://git.karo-electronics.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=66a02109c4a5891a43b437e0de677de759ea2310;p=karo-tx-linux.git 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: [] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x314/0x890 but task is already holding lock: (&(&c->erase_completion_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [] 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){+.+...}: [] validate_chain+0xe6c/0x10bc [] __lock_acquire+0x54c/0xba4 [] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x114 [] _raw_spin_lock+0x3c/0x4c [] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x4c/0x890 [] jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x1b4/0x1cc [] kthread+0x98/0xa0 [] kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8 -> #0 (&c->alloc_sem){+.+.+.}: [] print_circular_bug+0x70/0x2c4 [] validate_chain+0x1034/0x10bc [] __lock_acquire+0x54c/0xba4 [] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x114 [] mutex_lock_nested+0x74/0x33c [] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x314/0x890 [] jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x1b4/0x1cc [] kthread+0x98/0xa0 [] 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: [] jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x308/0x890 stack backtrace: [] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x100) from [] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) [] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [] (print_circular_bug+0x1c8/0x2c4) [] (print_circular_bug+0x1c8/0x2c4) from [] (validate_chain+0x1034/0x10bc) [] (validate_chain+0x1034/0x10bc) from [] (__lock_acquire+0x54c/0xba4) [] (__lock_acquire+0x54c/0xba4) from [] (lock_acquire+0xa4/0x114) [] (lock_acquire+0xa4/0x114) from [] (mutex_lock_nested+0x74/0x33c) [] (mutex_lock_nested+0x74/0x33c) from [] (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x314/0x890) [] (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x314/0x890) from [] (jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x1b4/0x1cc) [] (jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x1b4/0x1cc) from [] (kthread+0x98/0xa0) [] (kthread+0x98/0xa0) from [] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8) This was introduce in '81cfc9f jffs2: Fix serious write stall due to erase'. Signed-off-by: Josh Cartwright Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- diff --git a/fs/jffs2/gc.c b/fs/jffs2/gc.c index 31dce611337c..4bbd5211bb32 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 */