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 S1752454AbdJ0JpX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:45:23 -0400
Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com ([209.85.223.195]:47052 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752193AbdJ0JpU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:45:20 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+T3yyG9b0v0GhHFmQvDqSpy02EZyQ8ZSa7DwLehsuycecacIPf6cd4fFDKFN3vCxfumUUJ4lEliLVM7VV481hc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171027093418.om5e566srz2ztsrk@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <089e0825eec8955c1f055c83d476@google.com> <20171027093418.om5e566srz2ztsrk@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 11:44:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+Y=NCy20_k4YcrCF2Q0f16UPDZBVAF=RkkZ0uSxZq5XaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in lru_add_drain_all
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.