lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] xen/xenbus: Avoid a lockdep warning when adding a watch
From
On 07.06.23 14:36, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> The following lockdep warning appears during boot on a Xen dom0 system:
>
> [ 96.388794] ======================================================
> [ 96.388797] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 96.388799] 6.4.0-rc5-default+ #8 Tainted: G EL
> [ 96.388803] ------------------------------------------------------
> [ 96.388804] xenconsoled/1330 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 96.388808] ffffffff82acdd10 (xs_watch_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: register_xenbus_watch+0x45/0x140
> [ 96.388847]
> but task is already holding lock:
> [ 96.388849] ffff888100c92068 (&u->msgbuffer_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: xenbus_file_write+0x2c/0x600
> [ 96.388862]
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> [ 96.388864]
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 96.388866]
> -> #2 (&u->msgbuffer_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [ 96.388874] __mutex_lock+0x85/0xb30
> [ 96.388885] xenbus_dev_queue_reply+0x48/0x2b0
> [ 96.388890] xenbus_thread+0x1d7/0x950
> [ 96.388897] kthread+0xe7/0x120
> [ 96.388905] ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x50
> [ 96.388914]
> -> #1 (xs_response_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [ 96.388923] __mutex_lock+0x85/0xb30
> [ 96.388930] xenbus_backend_ioctl+0x56/0x1c0
> [ 96.388935] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x90/0xd0
> [ 96.388942] do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x90
> [ 96.388950] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
> [ 96.388957]
> -> #0 (xs_watch_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}:
> [ 96.388965] __lock_acquire+0x1538/0x2260
> [ 96.388972] lock_acquire+0xc6/0x2b0
> [ 96.388976] down_read+0x2d/0x160
> [ 96.388983] register_xenbus_watch+0x45/0x140
> [ 96.388990] xenbus_file_write+0x53d/0x600
> [ 96.388994] vfs_write+0xe4/0x490
> [ 96.389003] ksys_write+0xb8/0xf0
> [ 96.389011] do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x90
> [ 96.389017] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
> [ 96.389023]
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> [ 96.389025] Chain exists of:
> xs_watch_rwsem --> xs_response_mutex --> &u->msgbuffer_mutex
>
> [ 96.413429] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [ 96.413430] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 96.413430] ---- ----
> [ 96.413431] lock(&u->msgbuffer_mutex);
> [ 96.413432] lock(xs_response_mutex);
> [ 96.413433] lock(&u->msgbuffer_mutex);
> [ 96.413434] rlock(xs_watch_rwsem);
> [ 96.413436]
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> [ 96.413436] 1 lock held by xenconsoled/1330:
> [ 96.413438] #0: ffff888100c92068 (&u->msgbuffer_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: xenbus_file_write+0x2c/0x600
> [ 96.413446]
>
> An ioctl call IOCTL_XENBUS_BACKEND_SETUP (record #1 in the report)
> results in calling xenbus_alloc() -> xs_suspend() which introduces
> ordering xs_watch_rwsem --> xs_response_mutex. The xenbus_thread()
> operation (record #2) creates xs_response_mutex --> &u->msgbuffer_mutex.
> An XS_WATCH write to the xenbus file then results in a complain about
> the opposite lock order &u->msgbuffer_mutex --> xs_watch_rwsem.
>
> The dependency xs_watch_rwsem --> xs_response_mutex is spurious. Avoid
> it and the warning by changing the ordering in xs_suspend(), first
> acquire xs_response_mutex and then xs_watch_rwsem. Reverse also the
> unlocking order in xs_suspend_cancel() for consistency, but keep
> xs_resume() as is because it needs to have xs_watch_rwsem unlocked only
> after exiting xs suspend and re-adding all watches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@suse.com>

Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>

Sorry it took so long,


Juergen

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-22 07:48    [W:0.041 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site