[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YD0jLTciK0M7P+Hc@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 18:23:57 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+506c8a2a115201881d45@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in sk_clone_lock
On Mon 01-03-21 08:39:22, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:57 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Then how come this can ever be a problem? in_task() should exclude soft
> > irq context unless I am mistaken.
> >
>
> If I take the following example of syzbot's deadlock scenario then
> CPU1 is the one freeing the hugetlb pages. It is in the process
> context but has disabled softirqs (see __tcp_close()).
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(hugetlb_lock);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(slock-AF_INET);
> lock(hugetlb_lock);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(slock-AF_INET);
>
> So, this deadlock scenario is very much possible.
OK, I see the point now. I was focusing on the IRQ context and hugetlb
side too much. We do not need to be freeing from there. All it takes is
to get a dependency chain over a common lock held here. Thanks for
bearing with me.
Let's see whether we can make hugetlb_lock irq safe.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists