[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yblst9nyDSH2RQWQ@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 04:19:03 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: syzbot <syzbot+c915885f05d8e432e7b4@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in split_huge_page_to_list
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 05:03:26PM -0800, syzbot wrote:
> commit 3ebffc96befbaf9de9297b00d67091bb702fad8e
> Author: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
> Date: Sun Jun 28 02:19:08 2020 +0000
>
> mm: Use multi-index entries in the page cache
>
> bisection log: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=1276e4bab00000
> final oops: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=1176e4bab00000
> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1676e4bab00000
Well, this is all entirely plausible:
+ xas_split_alloc(&xas, head, compound_order(head),
+ mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
It looks like I can fix this by moving the memory allocation before
the acquisition of the i_mmap_lock. Any objections to this:
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -2653,6 +2653,13 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct lis
t_head *list)
goto out;
}
+ xas_split_alloc(&xas, head, compound_order(head),
+ mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
+ if (xas_error(&xas)) {
+ ret = xas_error(&xas);
+ goto out;
+ }
+
anon_vma = NULL;
i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);
@@ -2679,15 +2686,6 @@ int split_huge_page_to_list(struct page *page, struct list_head *list)
unmap_page(head);
- if (mapping) {
- xas_split_alloc(&xas, head, compound_order(head),
- mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) & GFP_RECLAIM_MASK);
- if (xas_error(&xas)) {
- ret = xas_error(&xas);
- goto out_unlock;
- }
- }
-
/* block interrupt reentry in xa_lock and spinlock */
local_irq_disable();
if (mapping) {
(relative to the above patch)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists