Re: possible deadlock in lru_add_drain_all

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> 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

As far as I understand linux-next constantly recreates tree, so that
all commits hashes are destroyed.
Somebody mentioned some time ago about linux-next-something tree which
keeps all of the history (but I don't remember it off the top of my
head).


>> [...]
>>> 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.