[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: possible deadlock in __ata_sff_interrupt
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 10:44:06AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:

> The original & complete lockdep splat is in the report email here:
> It looks like a spinlock is taken for the fasync stuff without irq
> disabled and that same spinlock is needed in kill_fasync() which is
> itself called (potentially) with IRQ disabled. Hence the splat. In any
> case, that is how I understand the issue. But as mentioned above, given
> that I can see many drivers calling kill_fasync() with irq disabled, I
> wonder if this is a genuine potential problem or a false negative.

OK, I'm about to fall asleep, so I might very well be missing something
obvious, but...

CPU1: ptrace(2)

CPU2: setpgid(2)

CPU1: takes an interrupt that would call kill_fasync(). grep and the
first instance of kill_fasync() is in hpet_interrupt() - it's not
something exotic. IRQs disabled on CPU2 won't stop it.
kill_fasync(..., SIGIO, ...)
read_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock, flags);
read_lock_irqsave(&fown->lock, flags);

... and CPU1 spins as well.

It's not a matter of kill_fasync() called with IRQs disabled; the
problem is kill_fasync() called from interrupt taken while holding
tasklist_lock at least shared. Somebody trying to grab it on another
CPU exclusive before we get to send_sigio() from kill_fasync() will
end up spinning and will make us spin as well.

I really hope that's just me not seeing something obvious - we had
kill_fasync() called in IRQ handlers since way back and we had
tasklist_lock taken shared without disabling IRQs for just as long.

<goes to sleep, hoping to find "Al, you are a moron, it's obviously OK
for such and such reasons" in the mailbox tomorrow morning>

 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-16 04:41    [W:0.068 / U:23.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site