lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: possible deadlock in lru_add_drain_all
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri 27-10-17 02:22:40, syzbot wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> syzkaller hit the following crash on
>> a31cc455c512f3f1dd5f79cac8e29a7c8a617af8
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/master
>> compiler: gcc (GCC) 7.1.1 20170620
>> .config is attached
>> Raw console output is attached.
>
> I do not see such a commit. My linux-next top is next-20171018
>
> [...]
>> Chain exists of:
>> cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &pipe->mutex/1 --> &sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9
>>
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ---- ----
>> lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9);
>> lock(&pipe->mutex/1);
>> lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9);
>> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
>
> I am quite confused about this report. Where exactly is the deadlock?
> I do not see where we would get pipe mutex from inside of the hotplug
> lock. Is it possible this is just a false possitive due to cross release
> feature?


As far as I understand this CPU0/CPU1 scheme works only for simple
cases with 2 mutexes. This seem to have larger cycle as denoted by
"the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:" section.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-28 20:17    [W:2.014 / U:0.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site