[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250905030430.6482-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 11:04:29 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+10b4363fb0f46527f3f3@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [sound?] possible deadlock in __snd_pcm_lib_xfer (2)
On Thu, 4 Sep 2025 08:12:45 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2025-09-04 09:05:28 [+0800], Hillf Danton wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Sep 2025 16:59:05 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2025-08-30 14:56:37 [+0800], Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > > > syz.0.46/6843 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > > > ffff8880b8823d90 ((softirq_ctrl.lock)){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock_rt.h:44 [inline]
> > > > > ffff8880b8823d90 ((softirq_ctrl.lock)){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __local_bh_disable_ip+0x264/0x400 kernel/softirq.c:168
> > > > >
> > > > Given softirq_ctrl is percpu, this report is false positive.
> > >
> > > No. This can happen on a single CPU.
> > >
> > But the single CPU theory fails to explain the deadlock reported.
> >
> > > > > Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU0 CPU1
> > > > > ---- ----
> Thead0 Thread1
> ------ -------c
> > > > > lock(&group->lock#2);
> preempt to ->
> > > > > lock((softirq_ctrl.lock));
> > > > > lock(&group->lock#2);
> <- preempt to
> > > > > lock((softirq_ctrl.lock));
> > > > >
> > > > > *** DEADLOCK ***
> now nobody makes progress
>
Because of the absense of the deadlock detecting mechanism in timer, see
lock_map_acquire() in call_timer_fn() for detail, hrtimer is unable to
detect deadlock like the reported one.
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock A hrtimer B callback
cancel hrtimer B lock A
On the other hand softirq_ctrl plays such a detecting role in accident, but
they are two entirely different things.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists