Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Nov 2021 17:50:00 +0300 | Subject | Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in smc_switch_to_fallback | From | Pavel Skripkin <> |
| |
On 11/20/21 05:47, syzbot wrote: > Hello, > > syzbot found the following issue on: > > HEAD commit: 9539ba4308ad Merge tag 'riscv-for-linus-5.16-rc2' of git:/.. > git tree: upstream > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=17f79d01b00000 > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=6d3b8fd1977c1e73 > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e979d3597f48262cb4ee > compiler: gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2 > > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet. > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit: > Reported-by: syzbot+e979d3597f48262cb4ee@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > ============================================ > WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > 5.16.0-rc1-syzkaller #0 Not tainted > -------------------------------------------- > syz-executor.3/1337 is trying to acquire lock: > ffff88809466ce58 (&ei->socket.wq.wait){..-.}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:349 [inline] > ffff88809466ce58 (&ei->socket.wq.wait){..-.}-{2:2}, at: smc_switch_to_fallback+0x3d5/0x8c0 net/smc/af_smc.c:588 > > but task is already holding lock: > ffff88809466c258 (&ei->socket.wq.wait){..-.}-{2:2}, at: smc_switch_to_fallback+0x3ca/0x8c0 net/smc/af_smc.c:587 > > other info that might help us debug this: > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 > ---- > lock(&ei->socket.wq.wait); > lock(&ei->socket.wq.wait); >
There is simple code block in net/smc/af_smc.c:
spin_lock_irqsave(&smc_wait->lock, flags); spin_lock(&clc_wait->lock); list_splice_init(&smc_wait->head, &clc_wait->head); spin_unlock(&clc_wait->lock); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&smc_wait->lock, flags);
smc_wait and clc_wait are too different pointers (based on report), but these 2 different wait_queue locks registered to lockdep map via sock_alloc_inode(), where init_waitqueue_head(&ei->socket.wq.wait); is called. So any nested wait_queue_head_t locking will cause lockdep warning.
Have no idea how to handle it, just my thoughts about root case :)
With regards, Pavel Skripkin
| |