[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b3f05987-74d9-4e6e-a18d-31e64c92337e@linux.dev>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 17:31:48 +0800
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
To: syzbot ci <syzbot+ci5a676d3d210999ee@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc: syzbot@...ts.linux.dev, osalvador@...e.de,
syzbot@...kaller.appspotmail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
david@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, muchun.song@...ux.dev
Subject: Re: [syzbot ci] Re: mm/hugetlb: fix possible deadlock in
__hugetlb_zap_begin
On 2025/11/10 17:15, syzbot ci wrote:
> syzbot ci has tested the following series
>
> [v1] mm/hugetlb: fix possible deadlock in __hugetlb_zap_begin
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251110051421.29436-1-lance.yang@linux.dev
> * [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: fix possible deadlock in __hugetlb_zap_begin
>
> and found the following issues:
> * possible deadlock in move_hugetlb_page_tables
> * possible deadlock in remove_inode_hugepages
> * possible deadlock in unmap_vmas
Oops, this fix was incomplete, as other code paths with the reverse locking
order still exist, leading to the deadlocks reported by syzbot ...
Let me take a closer look ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists