Re: [PATCH 2/9] vfs: export do_splice_direct() to modules

[Al Viro]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 02:37:55AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
> 
> David Howells:
> > Now, looking at __sb_start_write(), I'm not entirely sure how the deadlock
> > might operate, so it's possible that this is a false alarm.  Maybe Jan Kara can
> > illuminate further, so I've added him to the cc list.
> 
> It is related to the design of UnionMount, isn't it?
> UnionMount is not a filesystem and doen't have its own superblock.
> If it was a fs, then
> - vfs_truncate() acquires sb_writers for the unioning-fs.
> - the unioning-fs may call vfs_truncate() again for the underlying fs.
> - this time, sb_writers is for the underlying fs which is a different
>   sb_writers object from the already acquired one.
> So there would be no deadlock.

Doesn't help the situation with copyup - witness overlayfs stepping into the
same deadlock on copyup.  It wants ->i_mutex held on directory in upper layer
and it tries to write to file it has created in there.  The problem is
with the upper layer superblock getting frozen; having a separate one for
union is irrelevant.  Let me check how aufs does...  Aha.  Your
au_do_copy_file() ends up calling vfs_write() on the file opened in
upper layer.  And AFAICS it's called with ->i_mutex held on the directory
in upper layer, so you've got the same deadlock, sorry.
--
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/