--- /dev/null
+From 5ea9a7c5fe4149f165f0e3b624fe08df02b6c301 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
+Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:22:39 +1100
+Subject: nfsd: don't take fi_lock in nfsd_break_deleg_cb()
+
+From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
+
+commit 5ea9a7c5fe4149f165f0e3b624fe08df02b6c301 upstream.
+
+A recent change to check_for_locks() changed it to take ->flc_lock while
+holding ->fi_lock. This creates a lock inversion (reported by lockdep)
+because there is a case where ->fi_lock is taken while holding
+->flc_lock.
+
+->flc_lock is held across ->fl_lmops callbacks, and
+nfsd_break_deleg_cb() is one of those and does take ->fi_lock. However
+it doesn't need to.
+
+Prior to v4.17-rc1~110^2~22 ("nfsd: create a separate lease for each
+delegation") nfsd_break_deleg_cb() would walk the ->fi_delegations list
+and so needed the lock. Since then it doesn't walk the list and doesn't
+need the lock.
+
+Two actions are performed under the lock. One is to call
+nfsd_break_one_deleg which calls nfsd4_run_cb(). These doesn't act on
+the nfs4_file at all, so don't need the lock.
+
+The other is to set ->fi_had_conflict which is in the nfs4_file.
+This field is only ever set here (except when initialised to false)
+so there is no possible problem will multiple threads racing when
+setting it.
+
+The field is tested twice in nfs4_set_delegation(). The first test does
+not hold a lock and is documented as an opportunistic optimisation, so
+it doesn't impose any need to hold ->fi_lock while setting
+->fi_had_conflict.
+
+The second test in nfs4_set_delegation() *is* make under ->fi_lock, so
+removing the locking when ->fi_had_conflict is set could make a change.
+The change could only be interesting if ->fi_had_conflict tested as
+false even though nfsd_break_one_deleg() ran before ->fi_lock was
+unlocked. i.e. while hash_delegation_locked() was running.
+As hash_delegation_lock() doesn't interact in any way with nfs4_run_cb()
+there can be no importance to this interaction.
+
+So this patch removes the locking from nfsd_break_one_deleg() and moves
+the final test on ->fi_had_conflict out of the locked region to make it
+clear that locking isn't important to the test. It is still tested
+*after* vfs_setlease() has succeeded. This might be significant and as
+vfs_setlease() takes ->flc_lock, and nfsd_break_one_deleg() is called
+under ->flc_lock this "after" is a true ordering provided by a spinlock.
+
+Fixes: edcf9725150e ("nfsd: fix RELEASE_LOCKOWNER")
+Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
+Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
+Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 11 +++++------
+ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
++++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c
+@@ -4945,10 +4945,8 @@ nfsd_break_deleg_cb(struct file_lock *fl
+ */
+ fl->fl_break_time = 0;
+
+- spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
+ fp->fi_had_conflict = true;
+ nfsd_break_one_deleg(dp);
+- spin_unlock(&fp->fi_lock);
+ return false;
+ }
+
+@@ -5557,12 +5555,13 @@ nfs4_set_delegation(struct nfsd4_open *o
+ if (status)
+ goto out_unlock;
+
++ status = -EAGAIN;
++ if (fp->fi_had_conflict)
++ goto out_unlock;
++
+ spin_lock(&state_lock);
+ spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
+- if (fp->fi_had_conflict)
+- status = -EAGAIN;
+- else
+- status = hash_delegation_locked(dp, fp);
++ status = hash_delegation_locked(dp, fp);
+ spin_unlock(&fp->fi_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&state_lock);
+