Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: fix a lockdep caused by path resolution during device scan

On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 12:19 PM Qu Wenruo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [BUG]
> There is a lockdep report related to device scan:
>
> ======================================================
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 7.2.0-20260712.rc2.git0.e3321fa3034d.300.fc44.s390x+debug #1 Not tainted
> ------------------------------------------------------
> (udev-worker)/1653 is trying to acquire lock:
> 0000006919232220 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#2){++++}-{3:3}, at: lookup_slow+0x3e/0x70
> but task is already holding lock:
> 00000069238564d8 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: device_list_add.constprop.0+0x148/0xc60
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> -> #5 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
>        lock_acquire+0x150/0x3f0
>        __mutex_lock+0xba/0xdc0
>        mutex_lock_nested+0x32/0x40
>        write_all_supers+0x7a/0x670
>        btrfs_sync_log+0xae6/0xdd0
>        btrfs_sync_file+0x4fa/0x7a0
>        __s390x_sys_fsync+0x52/0xa0
>        __do_syscall+0x172/0x750
>        system_call+0x72/0x90
> -> #4 (&fs_info->tree_log_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
>        lock_acquire+0x150/0x3f0
>        __mutex_lock+0xba/0xdc0
>        mutex_lock_nested+0x32/0x40
>        btrfs_sync_log+0xaba/0xdd0
>        btrfs_sync_file+0x4fa/0x7a0
>        __s390x_sys_fsync+0x52/0xa0
>        __do_syscall+0x172/0x750
>        system_call+0x72/0x90
> -> #3 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){.+.+}-{0:0}:
>        lock_acquire+0x150/0x3f0
>        join_transaction+0x108/0x680
>        start_transaction+0x21a/0x660
>        btrfs_join_transaction+0x32/0x40
>        btrfs_dirty_inode+0x52/0xf0
>        touch_atime+0x90/0xc0
>        filemap_read+0x446/0x450
>        vfs_read+0x208/0x370
>        ksys_read+0x88/0x120
>        __do_syscall+0x172/0x750
>        system_call+0x72/0x90
> -> #2 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){.+.+}-{0:0}:
>        reacquire_held_locks+0x14c/0x240
>        __lock_release.isra.0+0xd8/0x380
>        lock_release+0xf6/0x270
>        percpu_up_read+0x28/0xf0
>        __btrfs_end_transaction+0x178/0x1f0
>        btrfs_dirty_inode+0x82/0xf0
>        touch_atime+0x90/0xc0
>        btrfs_file_mmap_prepare+0x8c/0xa0
>        __mmap_region+0x214/0x780
>        mmap_region+0x108/0x160
>        do_mmap+0x402/0x5a0
>        vm_mmap_pgoff+0x156/0x230
>        ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x17e/0x220
>        __s390x_sys_old_mmap+0xa8/0x140
>        __do_syscall+0x172/0x750
>        system_call+0x72/0x90
> -> #1 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}:
>        lock_acquire+0x150/0x3f0
>        __might_fault+0x7a/0xa0
>        filldir64+0x11c/0x210
>        offset_readdir+0x92/0x200
>        iterate_dir+0xcc/0x2d0
>        __do_sys_getdents64+0x7a/0x130
>        __do_syscall+0x172/0x750
>        system_call+0x72/0x90
> -> #0 (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#2){++++}-{3:3}:
>        check_prev_add+0x160/0xf40
>        __lock_acquire+0x12aa/0x15a0
>        lock_acquire+0x150/0x3f0
>        down_read+0x5a/0x280
>        lookup_slow+0x3e/0x70
>        path_lookupat+0x1f0/0x370
>        filename_lookup+0xce/0x1f0
>        kern_path+0x48/0x70
>        is_same_device+0x146/0x300
>        device_list_add.constprop.0+0x1be/0xc60
>        btrfs_scan_one_device+0x13a/0x2f0
>        btrfs_control_ioctl+0x110/0x1e0
>        __s390x_sys_ioctl+0xfa/0x130
>        __do_syscall+0x172/0x750
>        system_call+0x72/0x90
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Chain exists of:
>   &type->i_mutex_dir_key#2 --> &fs_info->tree_log_mutex --> &fs_devs->device_list_mutex
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>        CPU0                    CPU1
>        ----                    ----
>   lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
>                                lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>                                lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
>   rlock(&type->i_mutex_dir_key#2);
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 2 locks held by (udev-worker)/1653:
>  #0: 0000016c727051c8 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_control_ioctl+0x102/0x1e0
>  #1: 00000069238564d8 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: device_list_add.constprop.0+0x148/0xc60
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 1653 Comm: (udev-worker) Not tainted 7.2.0-20260712.rc2.git0.e3321fa3034d.300.fc44.s390x+debug #1 PREEMPT
> Hardware name: IBM 3931 A01 701 (LPAR)
> Call Trace:
>  [<0000016c70680e3e>] dump_stack_lvl+0xae/0x108
>  [<0000016c7078aa44>] print_circular_bug+0x1a4/0x230
>  [<0000016c7078ac5c>] check_noncircular+0x18c/0x1b0
>  [<0000016c7078c030>] check_prev_add+0x160/0xf40
>  [<0000016c7078fbaa>] __lock_acquire+0x12aa/0x15a0
>  [<0000016c7078fff0>] lock_acquire+0x150/0x3f0
>  [<0000016c7180e2fa>] down_read+0x5a/0x280
>  [<0000016c70b88dde>] lookup_slow+0x3e/0x70
>  [<0000016c70b8f5d0>] path_lookupat+0x1f0/0x370
>  [<0000016c70b900ae>] filename_lookup+0xce/0x1f0
>  [<0000016c70b90218>] kern_path+0x48/0x70
>  [<0000016c70f5b4a6>] is_same_device+0x146/0x300
>  [<0000016c70f67cfe>] device_list_add.constprop.0+0x1be/0xc60
>  [<0000016c70f688da>] btrfs_scan_one_device+0x13a/0x2f0
>  [<0000016c70ed9cb0>] btrfs_control_ioctl+0x110/0x1e0
>  [<0000016c70b97d0a>] __s390x_sys_ioctl+0xfa/0x130
>  [<0000016c718004d2>] __do_syscall+0x172/0x750
>  [<0000016c718155d2>] system_call+0x72/0x90
>
> [CAUSE]
> Btrfs device scan will call is_same_device() with device_list_mutex
> held. But is_same_device() will call kern_path() which will do path
> resolution and lock the inode.
>
> So device scan has the following lock sequence:
>
>  mutex_lock(device_list_mutex) from device_list_add()
>    |
>    v
>  inode_lock_shared() from lookup_slow() during kern_path().
>
> Meanwhile another thread is fsyncing, which has the following
> lock sequence:
>
>  inode_lock() from btrfs_inode_lock() inside btrfs_direct_write()
>    |
>    v
>  mutex_lock(tree_log_mutex() from btrfs_sync_log(), which is further
>  triggered from
>  iomap_dio_complete()->generic_write_sync()->btrfs_sync_file().
>    |
>    v
>  mutex_lock(device_list_mutex) from write_all_supers() inside
>  btrfs_sync_log().
>
> So the device scan has a reversed lock sequence, compared to the fsync
> one, this means we can have the following deadlock:
>
>           Device scan                   |           Fsync
> ----------------------------------------+--------------------------------
>  device_list_mutex locked               |
>                                         |   inode locked
>                                         |   try to lock device_list_mutex
>  try to lock inode                      |
>
> [FIX]
> Instead of a full path lookup, use dev_t to determine if two device
> paths are pointing to the same block device.
>
> Inside kernel dev_t is going to uniquely determine a block device, and
> the device path lookup is already done by lookup_bdev(), which is done
> without device_list_mutex held, thus no reversed locking sequence.
>
> Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/
> Fixes: 2e8b6bc0ab41 ("btrfs: avoid unnecessary device path update for the same device")
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>

Looks good now, thanks.

> ---
> Changelog:
> - Update the [CAUSE] to make it more clear why we have inode locked
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 37 +------------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 2d132c827913..3d1063bc73f8 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -740,41 +740,6 @@ const u8 *btrfs_sb_fsid_ptr(const struct btrfs_super_block *sb)
>         return has_metadata_uuid ? sb->metadata_uuid : sb->fsid;
>  }
>
> -static bool is_same_device(struct btrfs_device *device, const char *new_path)
> -{
> -       struct path old = { .mnt = NULL, .dentry = NULL };
> -       struct path new = { .mnt = NULL, .dentry = NULL };
> -       char AUTO_KFREE(old_path);
> -       bool is_same = false;
> -       int ret;
> -
> -       if (!device->name)
> -               goto out;
> -
> -       old_path = kzalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_NOFS);
> -       if (!old_path)
> -               goto out;
> -
> -       rcu_read_lock();
> -       ret = strscpy(old_path, rcu_dereference(device->name), PATH_MAX);
> -       rcu_read_unlock();
> -       if (ret < 0)
> -               goto out;
> -
> -       ret = kern_path(old_path, LOOKUP_FOLLOW, &old);
> -       if (ret)
> -               goto out;
> -       ret = kern_path(new_path, LOOKUP_FOLLOW, &new);
> -       if (ret)
> -               goto out;
> -       if (path_equal(&old, &new))
> -               is_same = true;
> -out:
> -       path_put(&old);
> -       path_put(&new);
> -       return is_same;
> -}
> -
>  /*
>   * Add new device to list of registered devices
>   *
> @@ -895,7 +860,7 @@ static noinline struct btrfs_device *device_list_add(const char *path,
>                                 MAJOR(path_devt), MINOR(path_devt),
>                                 current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
>
> -       } else if (!device->name || !is_same_device(device, path)) {
> +       } else if (!device->name || device->devt != path_devt) {
>                 const char *old_name;
>
>                 /*
> --
> 2.54.0
>
>