lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: INFO: task hung in lo_ioctl
From
Date
This seems to be an AB-BA deadlock where the lockdep cannot report (due to use of nested lock?).

When PID=6540 was (reported as hung) at mutex_lock_nested(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex, 1) (id=43ca8836),
it was already holding down_write_nested(&s->s_umount, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING) (id=566d4c39).
But when PID=6541 was (which would have been reported as hung if sysctl_hung_task_panic
were not set) at down_read(&sb->s_umount) (id=566d4c39), it was already holding
mutex_lock_nested(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex, 1) (id=43ca8836).

----------------------------------------
INFO: task syz-executor0:6540 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
Not tainted 4.16.0+ #13
"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
syz-executor0 D23560 6540 4521 0x80000004
Call Trace:
context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:2848 [inline]
__schedule+0x8fb/0x1ef0 kernel/sched/core.c:3490
schedule+0xf5/0x430 kernel/sched/core.c:3549
schedule_preempt_disabled+0x10/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:3607
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:833 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0xb7f/0x1810 kernel/locking/mutex.c:893
mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20 kernel/locking/mutex.c:908
lo_ioctl+0x8b/0x1b70 drivers/block/loop.c:1355
__blkdev_driver_ioctl block/ioctl.c:303 [inline]
blkdev_ioctl+0x1759/0x1e00 block/ioctl.c:601
ioctl_by_bdev+0xa5/0x110 fs/block_dev.c:2060
isofs_get_last_session fs/isofs/inode.c:567 [inline]
isofs_fill_super+0x2ba9/0x3bc0 fs/isofs/inode.c:660
mount_bdev+0x2b7/0x370 fs/super.c:1119
isofs_mount+0x34/0x40 fs/isofs/inode.c:1560
mount_fs+0x66/0x2d0 fs/super.c:1222

2 locks held by syz-executor0/6540:
#0: 00000000566d4c39 (&type->s_umount_key#49/1){+.+.}, at: alloc_super fs/super.c:211 [inline]
#0: 00000000566d4c39 (&type->s_umount_key#49/1){+.+.}, at: sget_userns+0x3b2/0xe60 fs/super.c:502 /* down_write_nested(&s->s_umount, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); */
#1: 0000000043ca8836 (&lo->lo_ctl_mutex/1){+.+.}, at: lo_ioctl+0x8b/0x1b70 drivers/block/loop.c:1355 /* mutex_lock_nested(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex, 1); */
3 locks held by syz-executor7/6541:
#0: 0000000043ca8836 (&lo->lo_ctl_mutex/1){+.+.}, at: lo_ioctl+0x8b/0x1b70 drivers/block/loop.c:1355 /* mutex_lock_nested(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex, 1); */
#1: 000000007bf3d3f9 (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.}, at: blkdev_reread_part+0x1e/0x40 block/ioctl.c:192
#2: 00000000566d4c39 (&type->s_umount_key#50){.+.+}, at: __get_super.part.10+0x1d3/0x280 fs/super.c:663 /* down_read(&sb->s_umount); */
----------------------------------------

sget() is using down_write_nested(&s->s_umount, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING)
with a comment block asserting that there is no risk of deadlock

/*
* sget() can have s_umount recursion.
*
* When it cannot find a suitable sb, it allocates a new
* one (this one), and tries again to find a suitable old
* one.
*
* In case that succeeds, it will acquire the s_umount
* lock of the old one. Since these are clearly distrinct
* locks, and this object isn't exposed yet, there's no
* risk of deadlocks.
*
* Annotate this by putting this lock in a different
* subclass.
*/

but this object (id=566d4c39) is already locked by other thread.
What is happening here?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-04 17:26    [W:0.112 / U:2.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site