diff options
| author | David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> | 2016-02-01 12:37:20 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com> | 2016-02-25 11:11:26 +0000 |
| commit | 49e91e7079febe59a20ca885a87dd1c54240d0f1 (patch) | |
| tree | 492560579a27a7658d2327f0e0a3a6eb825a303f /fs/jffs2 | |
| parent | 157078f64b8a9cd7011b6b900b2f2498df850748 (diff) | |
jffs2: Fix page lock / f->sem deadlock
With this fix, all code paths should now be obtaining the page lock before
f->sem.
Reported-by: Szabó Tamás <sztomi89@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Thomas Betker <thomas.betker@rohde-schwarz.com>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/jffs2')
| -rw-r--r-- | fs/jffs2/README.Locking | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | fs/jffs2/gc.c | 17 |
2 files changed, 11 insertions, 11 deletions
diff --git a/fs/jffs2/README.Locking b/fs/jffs2/README.Locking index 3ea36554107f..8918ac905a3b 100644 --- a/fs/jffs2/README.Locking +++ b/fs/jffs2/README.Locking @@ -2,10 +2,6 @@ JFFS2 LOCKING DOCUMENTATION --------------------------- -At least theoretically, JFFS2 does not require the Big Kernel Lock -(BKL), which was always helpfully obtained for it by Linux 2.4 VFS -code. It has its own locking, as described below. - This document attempts to describe the existing locking rules for JFFS2. It is not expected to remain perfectly up to date, but ought to be fairly close. @@ -69,6 +65,7 @@ Ordering constraints: any f->sem held. 2. Never attempt to lock two file mutexes in one thread. No ordering rules have been made for doing so. + 3. Never lock a page cache page with f->sem held. erase_completion_lock spinlock diff --git a/fs/jffs2/gc.c b/fs/jffs2/gc.c index 5a2dec2b064c..95d5880a63ee 100644 --- a/fs/jffs2/gc.c +++ b/fs/jffs2/gc.c @@ -1296,14 +1296,17 @@ static int jffs2_garbage_collect_dnode(struct jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_era BUG_ON(start > orig_start); } - /* First, use readpage() to read the appropriate page into the page cache */ - /* Q: What happens if we actually try to GC the _same_ page for which commit_write() - * triggered garbage collection in the first place? - * A: I _think_ it's OK. read_cache_page shouldn't deadlock, we'll write out the - * page OK. We'll actually write it out again in commit_write, which is a little - * suboptimal, but at least we're correct. - */ + /* The rules state that we must obtain the page lock *before* f->sem, so + * drop f->sem temporarily. Since we also hold c->alloc_sem, nothing's + * actually going to *change* so we're safe; we only allow reading. + * + * It is important to note that jffs2_write_begin() will ensure that its + * page is marked Uptodate before allocating space. That means that if we + * end up here trying to GC the *same* page that jffs2_write_begin() is + * trying to write out, read_cache_page() will not deadlock. */ + mutex_unlock(&f->sem); pg_ptr = jffs2_gc_fetch_page(c, f, start, &pg); + mutex_lock(&f->sem); if (IS_ERR(pg_ptr)) { pr_warn("read_cache_page() returned error: %ld\n", |