When CacheFiles cache objects are in use, they have in-memory representations,
as defined by the cachefiles_object struct. These are kept in a tree rooted in
the cache and indexed by dentry pointer (since there's a unique mapping between
object index key and dentry).
Collisions can occur between a representation already in the tree and a new
representation being set up because it takes time to dispose of an old
representation - particularly if it must be unlinked or renamed.
When such a collision occurs, cachefiles_mark_object_active() is meant to check
to see if the old, already-present representation is in the process of being
discarded (ie. FSCACHE_OBJECT_IS_LIVE is not set on it) - and, if so, wait for
the representation to be removed (ie. CACHEFILES_OBJECT_ACTIVE is then
cleared).
However, the test for whether the old representation is still live is checking
the new object - which always will be live at this point. This leads to an
oops looking like:
CacheFiles: Error: Unexpected object collision
object: OBJ1b354
objstate=LOOK_UP_OBJECT fl=8 wbusy=2 ev=0[0]
ops=0 inp=0 exc=0
parent=ffff88053f5417c0
cookie=ffff880538f202a0 [pr=ffff8805381b7160 nd=ffff880509c6eb78 fl=27]
key=[8] '2490000000000000'
xobject: OBJ1a600
xobjstate=DROP_OBJECT fl=70 wbusy=2 ev=0[0]
xops=0 inp=0 exc=0
xparent=ffff88053f5417c0
xcookie=ffff88050f4cbf70 [pr=ffff8805381b7160 nd= (null) fl=12]
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/cachefiles/namei.c:200!
...
Workqueue: fscache_object fscache_object_work_func [fscache]
...
RIP: ... cachefiles_walk_to_object+0x7ea/0x860 [cachefiles]
...
Call Trace:
[<ffffffffa04dadd8>] ? cachefiles_lookup_object+0x58/0x100 [cachefiles]
[<ffffffffa01affe9>] ? fscache_look_up_object+0xb9/0x1d0 [fscache]
[<ffffffffa01afc4d>] ? fscache_parent_ready+0x2d/0x80 [fscache]
[<ffffffffa01b0672>] ? fscache_object_work_func+0x92/0x1f0 [fscache]
[<ffffffff8107e82b>] ? process_one_work+0x16b/0x400
[<ffffffff8107fc16>] ? worker_thread+0x116/0x380
[<ffffffff8107fb00>] ? manage_workers.isra.21+0x290/0x290
[<ffffffff81085edc>] ? kthread+0xbc/0xe0
[<ffffffff81085e20>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0x80/0x80
[<ffffffff81502d0c>] ? ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[<ffffffff81085e20>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0x80/0x80
Reported-by: Manuel Schölling <manuel.schoelling@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>
a30efe261b