Pull vfs updates from Al Viro:
 "This the bunch that sat in -next + lock_parent() fix.  This is the
  minimal set; there's more pending stuff.

  In particular, I really hope to get acct.c fixes merged this cycle -
  we need that to deal sanely with delayed-mntput stuff.  In the next
  pile, hopefully - that series is fairly short and localized
  (kernel/acct.c, fs/super.c and fs/namespace.c).  In this pile: more
  iov_iter work.  Most of prereqs for ->splice_write with sane locking
  order are there and Kent's dio rewrite would also fit nicely on top of
  this pile"

* 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs: (70 commits)
  lock_parent: don't step on stale ->d_parent of all-but-freed one
  kill generic_file_splice_write()
  ceph: switch to iter_file_splice_write()
  shmem: switch to iter_file_splice_write()
  nfs: switch to iter_splice_write_file()
  fs/splice.c: remove unneeded exports
  ocfs2: switch to iter_file_splice_write()
  ->splice_write() via ->write_iter()
  bio_vec-backed iov_iter
  optimize copy_page_{to,from}_iter()
  bury generic_file_aio_{read,write}
  lustre: get rid of messing with iovecs
  ceph: switch to ->write_iter()
  ceph_sync_direct_write: stop poking into iov_iter guts
  ceph_sync_read: stop poking into iov_iter guts
  new helper: copy_page_from_iter()
  fuse: switch to ->write_iter()
  btrfs: switch to ->write_iter()
  ocfs2: switch to ->write_iter()
  xfs: switch to ->write_iter()
  ...

Dentry that had been through (or into) __dentry_kill() might be seen
by shrink_dentry_list(); that's normal, it'll be taken off the shrink
list and freed if __dentry_kill() has already finished.  The problem
is, its ->d_parent might be pointing to already freed dentry, so
lock_parent() needs to be careful.

We need to check that dentry hasn't already gone into __dentry_kill()
*and* grab rcu_read_lock() before dropping ->d_lock - the latter makes
sure that whatever we see in ->d_parent after dropping ->d_lock it
won't be freed until we drop rcu_read_lock().

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

This typedef is unnecessary and should just be removed.

Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

lock_parent() very much on purpose does nested locking of dentries, and
is careful to maintain the right order (lock parent first).  But because
it didn't annotate the nested locking order, lockdep thought it might be
a deadlock on d_lock, and complained.

Add the proper annotation for the inner locking of the child dentry to
make lockdep happy.

Introduced by commit 046b961b45f9 ("shrink_dentry_list(): take parent's
->d_lock earlier").

Reported-and-tested-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

it's 1 in the only remaining caller.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

We have the same problem with ->d_lock order in the inner loop, where
we are dropping references to ancestors.  Same solution, basically -
instead of using dentry_kill() we use lock_parent() (introduced in the
previous commit) to get that lock in a safe way, recheck ->d_count
(in case if lock_parent() has ended up dropping and retaking ->d_lock
and somebody managed to grab a reference during that window), trylock
the inode->i_lock and use __dentry_kill() to do the rest.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

The cause of livelocks there is that we are taking ->d_lock on
dentry and its parent in the wrong order, forcing us to use
trylock on the parent's one.  d_walk() takes them in the right
order, and unfortunately it's not hard to create a situation
when shrink_dentry_list() can't make progress since trylock
keeps failing, and shrink_dcache_parent() or check_submounts_and_drop()
keeps calling d_walk() disrupting the very shrink_dentry_list() it's
waiting for.

Solution is straightforward - if that trylock fails, let's unlock
the dentry itself and take locks in the right order.  We need to
stabilize ->d_parent without holding ->d_lock, but that's doable
using RCU.  And we'd better do that in the very beginning of the
loop in shrink_dentry_list(), since the checks on refcount, etc.
would need to be redone anyway.

That deals with a half of the problem - killing dentries on the
shrink list itself.  Another one (dropping their parents) is
in the next commit.

locking parent is interesting - it would be easy to do rcu_read_lock(),
lock whatever we think is a parent, lock dentry itself and check
if the parent is still the right one.  Except that we need to check
that *before* locking the dentry, or we are risking taking ->d_lock
out of order.  Fortunately, once the D1 is locked, we can check if
D2->d_parent is equal to D1 without the need to lock D2; D2->d_parent
can start or stop pointing to D1 only under D1->d_lock, so taking
D1->d_lock is enough.  In other words, the right solution is
rcu_read_lock/lock what looks like parent right now/check if it's
still our parent/rcu_read_unlock/lock the child.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

Result will be massaged to saner shape in the next commits.  It is
ugly, no questions - the point of that one is to be a provably
equivalent transformation (and it might be worth splitting a bit
more).

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

... into trylocks and everything else.  The latter (actual killing)
is __dentry_kill().

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

It can happen only when dentry_kill() is called with unlock_on_failure
equal to 0 - other callers had dentry pinned until the moment they've
got ->d_lock and DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED is set only after lockref_mark_dead().

IOW, only one of three call sites of dentry_kill() might end up reaching
that code.  Just move it there.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>