Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

/////////////''''''''''\ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggfffffffffffffffff… #956

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

noahdossan
Copy link

…fffffffffffffffd

g';flllllllllllllllllllllllllllllld'g;dffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff'[;hj

\h'jgggggggggghglf

\'\d'f Sticky keys have been disabled

…fffffffffffffffd

g';flllllllllllllllllllllllllllllld'g;dffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff'[;hj







\h'jgggggggggghglf
@KernelPRBot
Copy link

Hi @noahdossan!

Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel!

Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.

Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process.

Here's what to do:

  • Format your contribution according to kernel requirements
  • Decide who to send your contribution to
  • Set up your system to send your contribution as an email
  • Send your contribution and wait for feedback

How do I format my contribution?

The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations.

Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea.

You can create patches with git format-patch.

Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary.

Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with.

Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel.

Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this.

Where do I send my contribution?

The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes.

If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the get_maintainer.pl script in the kernel source can help you.

get_maintainer.pl will take the patch or patches you created in the previous step, and tell you who is responsible for them, and what mailing lists are used. You can also take a look at the MAINTAINERS file by hand.

Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches.

It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.)

How do I send my contribution?

Use git send-email, which will ensure that your patches are formatted in the standard manner. In order to use git send-email, you'll need to configure git to use your SMTP email server.

For more information about using git send-email, look at the Git documentation or type git help send-email. There are a number of useful guides and tutorials about git send-email that can be found on the internet.

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed.

Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine.

If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:

If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers!

I sent my patch - now what?

You wait.

You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at.

Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:

  • You might get a response to your email. Often these will be comments, which may require you to make changes to your patch, or explain why your way is the best way. You should respond to these comments, and you may need to submit another revision of your patch to address the issues raised.
  • Your patch might be merged into the subsystem tree. Code that becomes part of Linux isn't merged into the main repository straight away - it first goes into the subsystem tree, which is managed by the subsystem maintainer. It is then batched up with a number of other changes sent to Linus for inclusion. (This process is described in some detail in the kernel development process guide).
  • Your patch might be ignored completely. This happens sometimes - don't take it personally. Here's what to do:
    • Wait a bit more - patches often take several weeks to get a response; more if they were sent at a busy time.
    • Kernel developers often silently ignore patches that break the rules. Check for obvious violations of the Submitting Patches guidelines, the style guidelines, and any other documentation you can find about your subsystem. Check that you're sending your patch to the right place.
    • Try again later. When you resend it, don't add angry commentary, as that will get your patch ignored. It might also get you silently blacklisted.

Further information

Happy hacking!

This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot.

@noahdossan
Copy link
Author

Found my keyboard on the floor, sorry.

@noahdossan noahdossan closed this Sep 17, 2024
Copy link

@leofloripa leofloripa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@leofloripa
Copy link

@sugi

angolini pushed a commit to angolini/linux-fslc that referenced this pull request Sep 18, 2024
[ Upstream commit c3a5e3e ]

When using cachefiles, lockdep may emit something similar to the circular
locking dependency notice below.  The problem appears to stem from the
following:

 (1) Cachefiles manipulates xattrs on the files in its cache when called
     from ->writepages().

 (2) The setxattr() and removexattr() system call handlers get the name
     (and value) from userspace after taking the sb_writers lock, putting
     accesses of the vma->vm_lock and mm->mmap_lock inside of that.

 (3) The afs filesystem uses a per-inode lock to prevent multiple
     revalidation RPCs and in writeback vs truncate to prevent parallel
     operations from deadlocking against the server on one side and local
     page locks on the other.

Fix this by moving the getting of the name and value in {get,remove}xattr()
outside of the sb_writers lock.  This also has the minor benefits that we
don't need to reget these in the event of a retry and we never try to take
the sb_writers lock in the event we can't pull the name and value into the
kernel.

Alternative approaches that might fix this include moving the dispatch of a
write to the cache off to a workqueue or trying to do without the
validation lock in afs.  Note that this might also affect other filesystems
that use netfslib and/or cachefiles.

 ======================================================
 WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
 6.10.0-build2+ torvalds#956 Not tainted
 ------------------------------------------------------
 fsstress/6050 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff888138fd82f0 (mapping.invalidate_lock#3){++++}-{3:3}, at: filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff888113f26d18 (&vma->vm_lock->lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: lock_vma_under_rcu+0x165/0x250

 which lock already depends on the new lock.

 the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

 -> Freescale#4 (&vma->vm_lock->lock){++++}-{3:3}:
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        down_write+0x3b/0x50
        vma_start_write+0x6b/0xa0
        vma_link+0xcc/0x140
        insert_vm_struct+0xb7/0xf0
        alloc_bprm+0x2c1/0x390
        kernel_execve+0x65/0x1a0
        call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x14d/0x190
        ret_from_fork+0x24/0x40
        ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30

 -> Freescale#3 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}:
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        __might_fault+0x7c/0xb0
        strncpy_from_user+0x25/0x160
        removexattr+0x7f/0x100
        __do_sys_fremovexattr+0x7e/0xb0
        do_syscall_64+0x9f/0x100
        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

 -> Freescale#2 (sb_writers#14){.+.+}-{0:0}:
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        percpu_down_read+0x3c/0x90
        vfs_iocb_iter_write+0xe9/0x1d0
        __cachefiles_write+0x367/0x430
        cachefiles_issue_write+0x299/0x2f0
        netfs_advance_write+0x117/0x140
        netfs_write_folio.isra.0+0x5ca/0x6e0
        netfs_writepages+0x230/0x2f0
        afs_writepages+0x4d/0x70
        do_writepages+0x1e8/0x3e0
        filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x84/0xa0
        __filemap_fdatawrite_range+0xa8/0xf0
        file_write_and_wait_range+0x59/0x90
        afs_release+0x10f/0x270
        __fput+0x25f/0x3d0
        __do_sys_close+0x43/0x70
        do_syscall_64+0x9f/0x100
        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

 -> Freescale#1 (&vnode->validate_lock){++++}-{3:3}:
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        down_read+0x95/0x200
        afs_writepages+0x37/0x70
        do_writepages+0x1e8/0x3e0
        filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x84/0xa0
        filemap_invalidate_inode+0x167/0x1e0
        netfs_unbuffered_write_iter+0x1bd/0x2d0
        vfs_write+0x22e/0x320
        ksys_write+0xbc/0x130
        do_syscall_64+0x9f/0x100
        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

 -> #0 (mapping.invalidate_lock#3){++++}-{3:3}:
        check_noncircular+0x119/0x160
        check_prev_add+0x195/0x430
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        down_read+0x95/0x200
        filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0
        __do_fault+0x57/0xd0
        do_pte_missing+0x23b/0x320
        __handle_mm_fault+0x2d4/0x320
        handle_mm_fault+0x14f/0x260
        do_user_addr_fault+0x2a2/0x500
        exc_page_fault+0x71/0x90
        asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30

 other info that might help us debug this:

 Chain exists of:
   mapping.invalidate_lock#3 --> &mm->mmap_lock --> &vma->vm_lock->lock

  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   rlock(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
                                lock(&mm->mmap_lock);
                                lock(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
   rlock(mapping.invalidate_lock#3);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

 1 lock held by fsstress/6050:
  #0: ffff888113f26d18 (&vma->vm_lock->lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: lock_vma_under_rcu+0x165/0x250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 0 PID: 6050 Comm: fsstress Not tainted 6.10.0-build2+ torvalds#956
 Hardware name: ASUS All Series/H97-PLUS, BIOS 2306 10/09/2014
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x80
  check_noncircular+0x119/0x160
  ? queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x4be/0x510
  ? __pfx_check_noncircular+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x10/0x10
  ? mark_lock+0x47/0x160
  ? init_chain_block+0x9c/0xc0
  ? add_chain_block+0x84/0xf0
  check_prev_add+0x195/0x430
  __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __lock_release.isra.0+0x13b/0x230
  lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
  ? filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire.part.0+0x10/0x10
  ? rcu_is_watching+0x34/0x60
  ? lock_acquire+0xd7/0x120
  down_read+0x95/0x200
  ? filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __filemap_get_folio+0x25/0x1a0
  filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0
  ? __pfx_filemap_fault+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x7c/0x90
  ? __pfx___lock_release.isra.0+0x10/0x10
  ? __pte_offset_map+0x99/0x110
  __do_fault+0x57/0xd0
  do_pte_missing+0x23b/0x320
  __handle_mm_fault+0x2d4/0x320
  ? __pfx___handle_mm_fault+0x10/0x10
  handle_mm_fault+0x14f/0x260
  do_user_addr_fault+0x2a2/0x500
  exc_page_fault+0x71/0x90
  asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30

Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/2136178.1721725194@warthog.procyon.org.uk
cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Gao Xiang <xiang@kernel.org>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
[brauner: fix minor issues]
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
thesamesam pushed a commit to thesamesam/linux that referenced this pull request Sep 20, 2024
[ Upstream commit c3a5e3e ]

When using cachefiles, lockdep may emit something similar to the circular
locking dependency notice below.  The problem appears to stem from the
following:

 (1) Cachefiles manipulates xattrs on the files in its cache when called
     from ->writepages().

 (2) The setxattr() and removexattr() system call handlers get the name
     (and value) from userspace after taking the sb_writers lock, putting
     accesses of the vma->vm_lock and mm->mmap_lock inside of that.

 (3) The afs filesystem uses a per-inode lock to prevent multiple
     revalidation RPCs and in writeback vs truncate to prevent parallel
     operations from deadlocking against the server on one side and local
     page locks on the other.

Fix this by moving the getting of the name and value in {get,remove}xattr()
outside of the sb_writers lock.  This also has the minor benefits that we
don't need to reget these in the event of a retry and we never try to take
the sb_writers lock in the event we can't pull the name and value into the
kernel.

Alternative approaches that might fix this include moving the dispatch of a
write to the cache off to a workqueue or trying to do without the
validation lock in afs.  Note that this might also affect other filesystems
that use netfslib and/or cachefiles.

 ======================================================
 WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
 6.10.0-build2+ torvalds#956 Not tainted
 ------------------------------------------------------
 fsstress/6050 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff888138fd82f0 (mapping.invalidate_lock#3){++++}-{3:3}, at: filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff888113f26d18 (&vma->vm_lock->lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: lock_vma_under_rcu+0x165/0x250

 which lock already depends on the new lock.

 the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

 -> #4 (&vma->vm_lock->lock){++++}-{3:3}:
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        down_write+0x3b/0x50
        vma_start_write+0x6b/0xa0
        vma_link+0xcc/0x140
        insert_vm_struct+0xb7/0xf0
        alloc_bprm+0x2c1/0x390
        kernel_execve+0x65/0x1a0
        call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x14d/0x190
        ret_from_fork+0x24/0x40
        ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30

 -> #3 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}:
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        __might_fault+0x7c/0xb0
        strncpy_from_user+0x25/0x160
        removexattr+0x7f/0x100
        __do_sys_fremovexattr+0x7e/0xb0
        do_syscall_64+0x9f/0x100
        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

 -> #2 (sb_writers#14){.+.+}-{0:0}:
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        percpu_down_read+0x3c/0x90
        vfs_iocb_iter_write+0xe9/0x1d0
        __cachefiles_write+0x367/0x430
        cachefiles_issue_write+0x299/0x2f0
        netfs_advance_write+0x117/0x140
        netfs_write_folio.isra.0+0x5ca/0x6e0
        netfs_writepages+0x230/0x2f0
        afs_writepages+0x4d/0x70
        do_writepages+0x1e8/0x3e0
        filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x84/0xa0
        __filemap_fdatawrite_range+0xa8/0xf0
        file_write_and_wait_range+0x59/0x90
        afs_release+0x10f/0x270
        __fput+0x25f/0x3d0
        __do_sys_close+0x43/0x70
        do_syscall_64+0x9f/0x100
        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

 -> #1 (&vnode->validate_lock){++++}-{3:3}:
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        down_read+0x95/0x200
        afs_writepages+0x37/0x70
        do_writepages+0x1e8/0x3e0
        filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x84/0xa0
        filemap_invalidate_inode+0x167/0x1e0
        netfs_unbuffered_write_iter+0x1bd/0x2d0
        vfs_write+0x22e/0x320
        ksys_write+0xbc/0x130
        do_syscall_64+0x9f/0x100
        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

 -> #0 (mapping.invalidate_lock#3){++++}-{3:3}:
        check_noncircular+0x119/0x160
        check_prev_add+0x195/0x430
        __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
        lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
        down_read+0x95/0x200
        filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0
        __do_fault+0x57/0xd0
        do_pte_missing+0x23b/0x320
        __handle_mm_fault+0x2d4/0x320
        handle_mm_fault+0x14f/0x260
        do_user_addr_fault+0x2a2/0x500
        exc_page_fault+0x71/0x90
        asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30

 other info that might help us debug this:

 Chain exists of:
   mapping.invalidate_lock#3 --> &mm->mmap_lock --> &vma->vm_lock->lock

  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   rlock(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
                                lock(&mm->mmap_lock);
                                lock(&vma->vm_lock->lock);
   rlock(mapping.invalidate_lock#3);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

 1 lock held by fsstress/6050:
  #0: ffff888113f26d18 (&vma->vm_lock->lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: lock_vma_under_rcu+0x165/0x250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 0 PID: 6050 Comm: fsstress Not tainted 6.10.0-build2+ torvalds#956
 Hardware name: ASUS All Series/H97-PLUS, BIOS 2306 10/09/2014
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x80
  check_noncircular+0x119/0x160
  ? queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x4be/0x510
  ? __pfx_check_noncircular+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x10/0x10
  ? mark_lock+0x47/0x160
  ? init_chain_block+0x9c/0xc0
  ? add_chain_block+0x84/0xf0
  check_prev_add+0x195/0x430
  __lock_acquire+0xaf0/0xd80
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __lock_release.isra.0+0x13b/0x230
  lock_acquire.part.0+0x103/0x280
  ? filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire.part.0+0x10/0x10
  ? rcu_is_watching+0x34/0x60
  ? lock_acquire+0xd7/0x120
  down_read+0x95/0x200
  ? filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __filemap_get_folio+0x25/0x1a0
  filemap_fault+0x26e/0x8b0
  ? __pfx_filemap_fault+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x7c/0x90
  ? __pfx___lock_release.isra.0+0x10/0x10
  ? __pte_offset_map+0x99/0x110
  __do_fault+0x57/0xd0
  do_pte_missing+0x23b/0x320
  __handle_mm_fault+0x2d4/0x320
  ? __pfx___handle_mm_fault+0x10/0x10
  handle_mm_fault+0x14f/0x260
  do_user_addr_fault+0x2a2/0x500
  exc_page_fault+0x71/0x90
  asm_exc_page_fault+0x22/0x30

Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/2136178.1721725194@warthog.procyon.org.uk
cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Gao Xiang <xiang@kernel.org>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
[brauner: fix minor issues]
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants