Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] btrfs: do not call close_fs_devices in btrfs_rm_device
From: Nikolay Borisov <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-06 06:40:09
On 5.10.21 г. 23:12, Josef Bacik wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
There's a subtle case where if we're removing the seed device from a file system we need to free its private copy of the fs_devices. However we do not need to call close_fs_devices(), because at this point there are no devices left to close as we've closed the last one. The only thing that close_fs_devices() does is decrement ->opened, which should be 1. We want to avoid calling close_fs_devices() here because it has a lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex), and we are going to stop holding the uuid_mutex in this path. So simply decrement the ->opened counter like we should, and then clean up like normal. Also add a comment explaining what we're doing here as I initially removed this code erroneously. Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> --- fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 0941f61d8071..5f19d0863094 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c@@ -2211,9 +2211,16 @@ int btrfs_rm_device(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, const char *device_path, synchronize_rcu(); btrfs_free_device(device); + /* + * This can happen if cur_devices is the private seed devices list. We + * cannot call close_fs_devices() here because it expects the uuid_mutex + * to be held, but in fact we don't need that for the private + * seed_devices, we can simply decrement cur_devices->opened and then + * remove it from our list and free the fs_devices. + */ if (cur_devices->num_devices == 0) { list_del_init(&cur_devices->seed_list); - close_fs_devices(cur_devices); + cur_devices->opened--;
I think an ASSERT(opened == 1) is warranted as this is a special case and there is very specific expectation of the state of opened.
free_fs_devices(cur_devices); }