Re: [RFC] workqueue: Fix irq inversion deadlock in manage_workers()

[Boqun Feng]

On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 07:03:47PM +0000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Boqun.
> 

Hi Tejun,

> On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 05:02:23PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Josef reported a HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected by
> > lockdep:
> > 
> > | [ 1270.472259] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
> > | [ 1270.472783] 4.14.0-rc1-xfstests-12888-g76833e8 #110 Not tainted
> > | [ 1270.473240] -----------------------------------------------------
> > | [ 1270.473710] kworker/u5:2/5157 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
> > | [ 1270.474239]  (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8da253d2>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa2/0x280
> > | [ 1270.474994]
> > | [ 1270.474994] and this task is already holding:
> > | [ 1270.475440]  (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8d2992f6>] worker_thread+0x366/0x3c0
> > | [ 1270.476046] which would create a new lock dependency:
> > | [ 1270.476436]  (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} -> (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
> > | [ 1270.476949]
> > | [ 1270.476949] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock:
> > | [ 1270.477553]  (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}
> > ...
> > | [ 1270.488900] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
> > | [ 1270.489327]  (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
> > ...
> > | [ 1270.494735]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> > | [ 1270.494735]
> > | [ 1270.495250]        CPU0                    CPU1
> > | [ 1270.495600]        ----                    ----
> > | [ 1270.495947]   lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
> > | [ 1270.496295]                                local_irq_disable();
> > | [ 1270.496753]                                lock(&pool->lock/1);
> > | [ 1270.497205]                                lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
> > | [ 1270.497744]   <Interrupt>
> > | [ 1270.497948]     lock(&pool->lock/1);
> > 
> > , which will cause a irq inversion deadlock if the above lock scenario
> > happens.
> > 
> > The root cause of this safe -> unsafe lock order is the
> > mutex_unlock(pool::manager_arb) in manage_workers() with pool::lock
> 
> So, if I'm not mistaken, this is a regression caused by b9c16a0e1f73
> ("locking/mutex: Fix lockdep_assert_held() fail") which seems to
> replace irqsave operations inside mutex to unconditional irq ones.
> 

Hmm.. I don't that commit replaced _irqsave with _irq ones. That commit
simply exposed mutex::wait_lock to lockdep(especially for the irq
inversion deadlock checking).

Even before that commit, the !DEBUG version of spin_{,un}lock_mutex()
wouldn't disable interrupts. So this is not a regression, it's a real
deadlock potential, which had not been detected until commit
b9c16a0e1f73.

Regards,
Boqun

> I suppose it's a requirement we can add but that needs to be an
> explicit change with backing rationales.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature