[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220125170900.472fdb649312e77a4a60d9da@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:09:00 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] proc/vmcore: fix possible deadlock on concurrent
mmap and read
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 20:34:17 +0100 David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> wrote:
> Lockdep noticed that there is chance for a deadlock if we have
> concurrent mmap, concurrent read, and the addition/removal of a
> callback.
>
> As nicely explained by Boqun:
>
> "
> Lockdep warned about the above sequences because rw_semaphore is a fair
> read-write lock, and the following can cause a deadlock:
>
> TASK 1 TASK 2 TASK 3
> ====== ====== ======
> down_write(mmap_lock);
> down_read(vmcore_cb_rwsem)
> down_write(vmcore_cb_rwsem); // blocked
> down_read(vmcore_cb_rwsem); // cannot get the lock because of the fairness
> down_read(mmap_lock); // blocked
I'm wondering about cc:stable. It's hard to believe that this is
likely to be observed in real life. But the ongoing reports of lockdep
splats will be irritating.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists