From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752477AbdJ0Nmi (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:42:38 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:53784 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752412AbdJ0Nmh (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:42:37 -0400
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:42:34 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: syzbot 
        <bot+e7353c7141ff7cbb718e4c888a14fa92de41ebaa@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        jglisse@redhat.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, shli@fb.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        ying.huang@intel.com
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in lru_add_drain_all
Message-ID: <20171027134234.7dyx4oshjwd44vqx@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <089e0825eec8955c1f055c83d476@google.com>
 <20171027093418.om5e566srz2ztsrk@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CACT4Y+Y=NCy20_k4YcrCF2Q0f16UPDZBVAF=RkkZ0uSxZq5XaA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+Y=NCy20_k4YcrCF2Q0f16UPDZBVAF=RkkZ0uSxZq5XaA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri 27-10-17 11:44:58, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Fri 27-10-17 02:22:40, syzbot wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> syzkaller hit the following crash on
> >> a31cc455c512f3f1dd5f79cac8e29a7c8a617af8
> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/master
> >> compiler: gcc (GCC) 7.1.1 20170620
> >> .config is attached
> >> Raw console output is attached.
> >
> > I do not see such a commit. My linux-next top is next-20171018
> >
> > [...]
> >> Chain exists of:
> >>   cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &pipe->mutex/1 --> &sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9
> >>
> >>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >>
> >>        CPU0                    CPU1
> >>        ----                    ----
> >>   lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9);
> >>                                lock(&pipe->mutex/1);
> >>                                lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9);
> >>   lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> >
> > I am quite confused about this report. Where exactly is the deadlock?
> > I do not see where we would get pipe mutex from inside of the hotplug
> > lock. Is it possible this is just a false possitive due to cross release
> > feature?
> 
> 
> As far as I understand this CPU0/CPU1 scheme works only for simple
> cases with 2 mutexes. This seem to have larger cycle as denoted by
> "the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:" section.

My point was that lru_add_drain_all doesn't take any external locks
other than lru_lock and that one is not anywhere in the chain AFAICS.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs