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

nerfcats · 2024-09-17T00:12:10Z

…fffffffffffffffd

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

\h'jgggggggggghglf

\'\d'f Sticky keys have been disabled

…fffffffffffffffd g';flllllllllllllllllllllllllllllld'g;dffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff'[;hj \h'jgggggggggghglf

KernelPRBot · 2024-09-17T00:15:10Z

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:

Kernel Newbies - this website contains a lot of useful resources for new kernel developers.
The kernel documentation - see also the Documentation directory in the kernel tree.

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

Working with the kernel development community - the official documentation for new kernel contributors

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.

nerfcats · 2024-09-17T02:48:26Z

Found my keyboard on the floor, sorry.

[ 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 <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] cc: Alexander Viro <[email protected]> cc: Christian Brauner <[email protected]> cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]> cc: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> cc: Gao Xiang <[email protected]> cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> cc: [email protected] cc: [email protected] cc: [email protected] [brauner: fix minor issues] Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

[ 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 <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] cc: Alexander Viro <[email protected]> cc: Christian Brauner <[email protected]> cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]> cc: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> cc: Gao Xiang <[email protected]> cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> cc: [email protected] cc: [email protected] cc: [email protected] [brauner: fix minor issues] Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

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 <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] cc: Alexander Viro <[email protected]> cc: Christian Brauner <[email protected]> cc: Jan Kara <[email protected]> cc: Jeff Layton <[email protected]> cc: Gao Xiang <[email protected]> cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> cc: [email protected] cc: [email protected] cc: [email protected] [brauner: fix minor issues] Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <[email protected]>

michael-eddy · 2024-11-08T10:01:59Z

rexbr7t8h978yt68879ty87hyyinmyf cxdruik,l;.ggfd rcazwsedrftfvgbyhnjkm, rtfyujinkm 4drtfgvbhjn m

/////////////''''''''''\ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggfffffffffffffffff…

9e603ea

…fffffffffffffffd g';flllllllllllllllllllllllllllllld'g;dffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff'[;hj \h'jgggggggggghglf

nerfcats closed this Sep 17, 2024

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

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

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

nerfcats commented Sep 17, 2024

KernelPRBot commented Sep 17, 2024

nerfcats commented Sep 17, 2024

This comment was marked as resolved.

michael-eddy commented Nov 8, 2024

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

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

Conversation

nerfcats commented Sep 17, 2024

KernelPRBot commented Sep 17, 2024

How do I format my contribution?

Where do I send my contribution?

How do I send my contribution?

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

I sent my patch - now what?

Further information

nerfcats commented Sep 17, 2024

This comment was marked as resolved.

michael-eddy commented Nov 8, 2024