Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Hi Tejun,

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello, Rafael.
>
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> So acpi_device_hotplug() calls lock_device_hotplug() which simply
>> acquires device_hotplug_lock.  It is held throughout the entire
>> hot-add/hot-remove code path.
>>
>> Witing anything to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpux/online goes through
>> online_store() in drivers/base/core.c and that does
>> lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() which then attempts to acquire
>> device_hotplug_lock using mutex_trylock().  And it only calls
>> either device_online() or device_offline() if it ends up with the
>> lock held.
>>
>> Quite frankly, I don't see how these particular two code paths can
>> deadlock in any way.
>>
>> So either a third code path is involved which is not executed
>> under device_hotplug_lock, or lockdep needs to be told to actually
>> take device_hotplug_lock into account in this case IMO.
>
> Hmm... all sysfs rw functions are protected from removal.  ie. by
> default, removal of a sysfs file drains in-flight rw operations, so
> the hot plug path grabs a lock and then tries to remove a file and
> writing to the online file makes the file's write method to try to
> grab the same lock.  It deadlocks if the hotunplug path already has
> the lock and trying to drain the online file for removal.

My point is that you cannot get into that situation.  If hotplug
already holds device_hotplug_lock, the write to "online" will end up
doing restart_syscall().

If the "online" code path is holding the lock, hotplug cannot acquire
it and cannot proceed.

Am I missing anything?

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/