Re: 2.6.27.14: BUG: lock held when returning to user space!

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 17:58 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 15:21 +0100, Frank van Maarseveen wrote:
> > > An lvextend -L+16G command for a logical volume while being mounted rw
> > > as ext3 triggered the following on 2.6.27.14:
> > > 
> > > ================================================
> > > [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > lvextend/29191 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
> > > 2 locks held by lvextend/29191:
> > >  #0: (&type->s_umount_key #15){....}, at: [<c019edfb>] get_super+0x6b/0xb0
> > >  #1: (&journal->j_barrier){....}, at: [<c01f9af3>] journal_lock_updates+0xc3/0xd0
> > 
> > Do recent kernels still say this?
>
>   I'd say so. We really hold j_barrier mutex when leaving the kernel
> after FIFREEZE ioctl (the call path goes as freeze_bdev -> ext3_freeze
> -> journal_lock_updates) until FITHAW is called. As far as I know it was
> designed this way...
>   It would be a pity to completely exclude j_barrier mutex from lockdep
> control so would it be possible to mark the mutex (or even that
> particular acquisition of the mutex) so that lockdep does not warn when
> we return with it to userspace?

Linus specificly stated that we are not to keep locks held when
returning to userspace:

  http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/27/135

So sure, we could annotate this, but no I won't until you can convince
both me and Linus that its a sane thing to do.

The problems include: how can you be sure its the same task calling the
completing ioctl?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/