Re: [syzbot] [mm?] possible deadlock in lock_mm_and_find_vma (4)

[Pedro Falcato]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 05:40:26PM +0000, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> +Cc netdev, block, nbd people
> 
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 06:54:27AM -0800, syzbot wrote:
> <snip>
> > 
> > Chain exists of:
> >   fs_reclaim --> k-sk_lock-AF_INET6 --> &mm->mmap_lock
> > 
> >  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > 
> >        CPU0                    CPU1
> >        ----                    ----
> >   rlock(&mm->mmap_lock);
> >                                lock(k-sk_lock-AF_INET6);
> >                                lock(&mm->mmap_lock);
> >   lock(fs_reclaim);
> > 
> >  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > 
> > 2 locks held by syz.3.3387/17804:
> >  #0: ffffffff905e2228 (br_ioctl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: br_ioctl_call+0x34/0xa0 net/socket.c:1225
> >  #1: ffff88807ad4b440 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{4:4}, at: mmap_read_trylock include/linux/mmap_lock.h:611 [inline]
> >  #1: ffff88807ad4b440 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{4:4}, at: get_mmap_lock_carefully mm/mmap_lock.c:441 [inline]
> >  #1: ffff88807ad4b440 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{4:4}, at: lock_mm_and_find_vma+0x35/0x6f0 mm/mmap_lock.c:501
> >
> 
> It looks to me like the issue is:
>  setsockopt(nbd_sock) -> takes sk_lock -> copy_from_user -> page fault ->
>    mmap_lock -> allocation needs reclaim -> fs_reclaim -> fs does IO -> nbd
>    grabs sk_lock -> deadlock
> 

Another funny case that came to me just now:
sendmsg(nbd_sock) -> lock_sock(nbd_sock) -> tcp_sendmsg_locked(nbd_sock) ->
copy_from_user() -> if VMA is backed by file on nbd bdev -> ... ->
lock_sock(nbd_sock)

Right? Is there something extremely crucial that I'm missing?

-- 
Pedro