Re: [PATCH v2] drm/virtio: abort virtqueue wait on device removal to avoid hung task

[syzbot]

> Hi Dmitry,
> Thank you for your review and the comment.
>
> On 21/05/2026 22:01, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 21.05.2026 05:19, Ryosuke Yasuoka пишет:
>>> virtio_gpu_queue_ctrl_sgs() and virtio_gpu_queue_cursor() use
>>> wait_event() without any abort condition when waiting for virtqueue
>>> space. If the host device stops processing commands, these waits block
>>> indefinitely inside a drm_dev_enter/exit() critical section. Since
>>> drm_dev_unplug(), which is called in device removal and system shutdown
>>> call path, blocks on synchronize_srcu() until all critical sections
>>> complete, device removal and system shutdown also hang.
>>> 
>>> Add a vqs_released flag to virtio_gpu_device and include it in the
>>> wait_event() condition. Set the flag and wake up both queues in a new
>>> virtio_gpu_release_vqs() helper, called before drm_dev_unplug() in both
>>> virtio_gpu_remove() and virtio_gpu_shutdown(). When the flag is set, the
>>> wait returns immediately and the command is aborted, following the same
>>> cleanup path as drm_dev_enter() failure.
>>> 
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+d6dd6f86d3aaf7eebe7406e45c1c6e549453f224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=d6dd6f86d3aaf7eebe7406e45c1c6e549453f224
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+908bd910da5dd79b88de4cf7baf376cc873a922e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=908bd910da5dd79b88de4cf7baf376cc873a922e
>>> Signed-off-by: Ryosuke Yasuoka <ryasuoka@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - Update the commit message.
>>> - Replace wait_event_timeout() with wait_event() using a compound
>>> condition that includes a new vqs_released flag.
>>> - Add virtio_gpu_release_vqs() helper to set the flag and wake up
>>> both queues, called before drm_dev_unplug() in remove and shutdown
>>> paths.
>>> - Remove the hardcoded 5-second timeout. Recovery is now driven by
>>> the driver flag instead of an arbitrary timeout value.
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h |  1 +
>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_vq.c  | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>  3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.c
>>> index a5ce96fb8a1d..e4fe5e0780f9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.c
>>> @@ -119,10 +119,24 @@ static int virtio_gpu_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>  	return ret;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +/*
>>> + * Release pending virtqueue waits so the drm_dev_enter/exit() critical
>>> + * sections complete before drm_dev_unplug() blocks on synchronize_srcu().
>>> + */
>>> +static void virtio_gpu_release_vqs(struct drm_device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev = dev->dev_private;
>>> +
>>> +	vgdev->vqs_released = true;
>>> +	wake_up_all(&vgdev->ctrlq.ack_queue);
>>> +	wake_up_all(&vgdev->cursorq.ack_queue);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static void virtio_gpu_remove(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct drm_device *dev = vdev->priv;
>>>  
>>> +	virtio_gpu_release_vqs(dev);
>>>  	drm_dev_unplug(dev);
>>>  	drm_atomic_helper_shutdown(dev);
>>>  	virtio_gpu_deinit(dev);
>>> @@ -133,6 +147,7 @@ static void virtio_gpu_shutdown(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct drm_device *dev = vdev->priv;
>>>  
>>> +	virtio_gpu_release_vqs(dev);
>>>  	/* stop talking to the device */
>>>  	drm_dev_unplug(dev);
>>>  }
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h
>>> index f17660a71a3e..0bd69a40857e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drv.h
>>> @@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ struct virtio_gpu_device {
>>>  
>>>  	struct virtio_gpu_queue ctrlq;
>>>  	struct virtio_gpu_queue cursorq;
>>> +	bool vqs_released;
>>>  	struct kmem_cache *vbufs;
>>>  
>>>  	atomic_t pending_commands;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_vq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_vq.c
>>> index 67865810a2e7..8057a9b7356d 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_vq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_vq.c
>>> @@ -396,7 +396,19 @@ static int virtio_gpu_queue_ctrl_sgs(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev,
>>>  	if (vq->num_free < elemcnt) {
>>>  		spin_unlock(&vgdev->ctrlq.qlock);
>>>  		virtio_gpu_notify(vgdev);
>>> -		wait_event(vgdev->ctrlq.ack_queue, vq->num_free >= elemcnt);
>>> +		wait_event(vgdev->ctrlq.ack_queue,
>>> +			   vq->num_free >= elemcnt || vgdev->vqs_released);
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * Set by virtio_gpu_release_vqs() to unblock
>>> +		 * synchronize_srcu() wait in drm_dev_unplug().
>>> +		 */
>>> +		if (vgdev->vqs_released) {
>>> +			if (fence && vbuf->objs)
>>> +				virtio_gpu_array_unlock_resv(vbuf->objs);
>>> +			free_vbuf(vgdev, vbuf);
>>> +			drm_dev_exit(idx);
>>> +			return -ENODEV;
>>> +		}
>>>  		goto again;
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> @@ -566,7 +578,14 @@ static void virtio_gpu_queue_cursor(struct virtio_gpu_device *vgdev,
>>>  	ret = virtqueue_add_sgs(vq, sgs, outcnt, 0, vbuf, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>>  	if (ret == -ENOSPC) {
>>>  		spin_unlock(&vgdev->cursorq.qlock);
>>> -		wait_event(vgdev->cursorq.ack_queue, vq->num_free >= outcnt);
>>> +		wait_event(vgdev->cursorq.ack_queue,
>>> +			   vq->num_free >= outcnt || vgdev->vqs_released);
>>> +		/* See comment in virtio_gpu_queue_ctrl_sgs(). */
>>> +		if (vgdev->vqs_released) {
>>> +			free_vbuf(vgdev, vbuf);
>>> +			drm_dev_exit(idx);
>>> +			return;
>>> +		}
>>>  		spin_lock(&vgdev->cursorq.qlock);
>>>  		goto retry;
>>>  	} else {
>> 
>> What about other wait_event in the driver? Why only these?
>
> There are other wait_event() calls on vgdev->resp_wq in virtgpu_prime.c
> and virtgpu_vram.c. These can also cause a stuck process when the host
> device stops or does not respond and should be fixed. However, they are
> not related to the issue being fixed here. I think they should be
> addressed in a separate commit.
>
> The wait_event(vgdev->resp_wq) calls wait for a host response, not for
> virtqueue ring space. They are not inside a drm_dev_enter/exit()
> critical section, so they don't block drm_dev_unplug() ->
> synchronize_srcu() and are not part of the deadlock reported by syzbot.
>
> However, if a process is stuck in wait_event(vgdev->resp_wq), there is
> no way to recover other than host device recovery itself. We can still
> remove the device and destroy the virtqueues while the process is stuck,
> so the host response can never arrive. IIUC, the stuck thread holds a
> drm_device reference, preventing vgdev from being freed; this is a
> resource leak.
>
> This can be fixed by adding a wake_up_all() and a vqs_released check
> similar to what is done for ctrlq/cursorq. However, I think this should
> be a separate commit since the root cause and problem are different.
>
> Alternatively, the resp_wq wait_event() calls could be converted to
> wait_event_interruptible() to fix the issue. But as you mentioned
> earlier in the v1 comment, we need the wait_event_interruptible()
> rework.
>
> What do you think? Should I include the resp_wq fix as a separate commit
> in this patch series, or leave it for the _interruptible() rework?
>
> Best regards,
> Ryosuke
>
>

I see the command but can't find the corresponding bug.
The email is sent to  syzbot+HASH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx address
but the HASH does not correspond to any known bug.
Please double check the address.