We don't need acls on xattr inodes because they are not directly
accessible from user mode.
Besides lockdep complains about recursive locking of xattr_sem as seen
below.
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
4.11.0-rc8+ #402 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
python/1894 is trying to acquire lock:
(&ei->xattr_sem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff804878a6>] ext4_xattr_get+0x66/0x270
but task is already holding lock:
(&ei->xattr_sem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff80489500>] ext4_xattr_set_handle+0xa0/0x5d0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&ei->xattr_sem);
lock(&ei->xattr_sem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by python/1894:
#0: (sb_writers#10){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff803d829f>] mnt_want_write+0x1f/0x50
#1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#15){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff803dda27>] vfs_setxattr+0x57/0xb0
#2: (&ei->xattr_sem){++++..}, at: [<ffffffff80489500>] ext4_xattr_set_handle+0xa0/0x5d0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 1894 Comm: python Not tainted 4.11.0-rc8+ #402
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x67/0x99
__lock_acquire+0x5f3/0x1830
lock_acquire+0xb5/0x1d0
down_read+0x2f/0x60
ext4_xattr_get+0x66/0x270
ext4_get_acl+0x43/0x1e0
get_acl+0x72/0xf0
posix_acl_create+0x5e/0x170
ext4_init_acl+0x21/0xc0
__ext4_new_inode+0xffd/0x16b0
ext4_xattr_set_entry+0x5ea/0xb70
ext4_xattr_block_set+0x1b5/0x970
ext4_xattr_set_handle+0x351/0x5d0
ext4_xattr_set+0x124/0x180
ext4_xattr_user_set+0x34/0x40
__vfs_setxattr+0x66/0x80
__vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x69/0x1c0
vfs_setxattr+0xa2/0xb0
setxattr+0x129/0x160
path_setxattr+0x87/0xb0
SyS_setxattr+0xf/0x20
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x18/0xad
Signed-off-by: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
1b917ed8ae