Skip to contentSkip to conversation

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rbd: don't assume RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED for exclusive" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree

PATCH [email protected] 1 participant 1 message Jul 30, 2024

Subsystems (3)
lore
Share & tools
lore

[email protected]

author maintainer
#0 lore raw

The patch below does not apply to the 6.6-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:

git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.6.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x 2237ceb71f89837ac47c5dce2aaa2c2b3a337a3c
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<[email protected]>' --in-reply-to '2024073022-profound-unsigned-6302@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.6.y' HEAD^..

Possible dependencies:

2237ceb71f89 ("rbd: don't assume RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED for exclusive mappings") ded080c86b3f ("rbd: don't move requests to the running list on errors")

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 2237ceb71f89837ac47c5dce2aaa2c2b3a337a3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ilya Dryomov <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 18:07:59 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] rbd: don't assume RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED for exclusive
mappings

Every time a watch is reestablished after getting lost, we need to update the cookie which involves quiescing exclusive lock. For this, we transition from RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED to RBD_LOCK_STATE_QUIESCING roughly for the duration of rbd_reacquire_lock() call. If the mapping is exclusive and I/O happens to arrive in this time window, it's failed with EROFS (later translated to EIO) based on the wrong assumption in rbd_img_exclusive_lock() -- "lock got released?" check there stopped making sense with commit a2b1da09793d ("rbd: lock should be quiesced on reacquire").

To make it worse, any such I/O is added to the acquiring list before EROFS is returned and this sets up for violating rbd_lock_del_request() precondition that the request is either on the running list or not on any list at all -- see commit ded080c86b3f ("rbd: don't move requests to the running list on errors"). rbd_lock_del_request() ends up processing these requests as if they were on the running list which screws up quiescing_wait completion counter and ultimately leads to

    rbd_assert(!completion_done(&rbd_dev->quiescing_wait));

being triggered on the next watch error.

Cc [email protected] # 06ef84c4e9c4: rbd: rename RBD_LOCK_STATE_RELEASING and releasing_wait
Fixes 637cd060537d ("rbd: new exclusive lock wait/wake code")
drivers/block/rbd.c +5 -5
index c30d227753d7..ea6c592e015c 100644
@@ -3457,6 +3457,7 @@ static void rbd_lock_del_request(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
 	lockdep_assert_held(&rbd_dev->lock_rwsem);
 	spin_lock(&rbd_dev->lock_lists_lock);
 	if (!list_empty(&img_req->lock_item)) {
+		rbd_assert(!list_empty(&rbd_dev->running_list));
 		list_del_init(&img_req->lock_item);
 		need_wakeup = (rbd_dev->lock_state == RBD_LOCK_STATE_QUIESCING &&
 			       list_empty(&rbd_dev->running_list));
@@ -3476,11 +3477,6 @@ static int rbd_img_exclusive_lock(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
 	if (rbd_lock_add_request(img_req))
 		return 1;
 
-	if (rbd_dev->opts->exclusive) {
-		WARN_ON(1); /* lock got released? */
-		return -EROFS;
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * Note the use of mod_delayed_work() in rbd_acquire_lock()
 	 * and cancel_delayed_work() in wake_lock_waiters().
@@ -4601,6 +4597,10 @@ static void rbd_reacquire_lock(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev)
 			rbd_warn(rbd_dev, "failed to update lock cookie: %d",
 				 ret);
 
+		if (rbd_dev->opts->exclusive)
+			rbd_warn(rbd_dev,
+			     "temporarily releasing lock on exclusive mapping");
+
 		/*
 		 * Lock cookie cannot be updated on older OSDs, so do
 		 * a manual release and queue an acquire.