Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc
Date	2016-01-20 13:10 +0100
Message-ID	<qSZKj-68m-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <qRfzR-gk-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <qRgme-OC-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSXp9-4uM-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSZqV-5Mi-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSZAD-5Pv-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:54:55PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:36:01AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> >> +Peter, Ingo, can you please suggest a way to annotate this locking
> >> pattern to avoid lockdep false positive?
> >
> > No, because I haven't a clue what the actual problem is.
> >
> > The report is fairly clear on how:
> >
> >  routelock
> >    &port->buf.lock/1
> >      &o_tty->termios_rwsem/1
> >        &buf->lock
> >
> > gets established, and shows where we try:
> >
> >   &buf->lock
> >     routelock
> >
> > Which gives a circle, ergo deadlock.
> >
> > Show which link is wrong and why, and I can suggest ways of annotating
> > that.
> 
> 
> Alan provided an explanation calling this "false report":
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller/YrV0bzdfa-g/cCVoUf1OFQAJ

I read that, I didn't understand it. Which link is wrong and why?

> And I don't understand how the following is a deadlock, since there is
> no cycle...
> 
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>       CPU0                    CPU1
>        ----                    ----
>   lock(&buf->lock);
>                                lock(&o_tty->termios_rwsem/1);
>                                lock(&buf->lock);
>   lock(routelock);

Ignore the stupid picture, it only really works for simple cases.

Thread

Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and  flush_to_ldisc One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2016-01-15 17:40 +0100
  Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2016-01-15 18:30 +0100
    Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2016-01-20 10:40 +0100
      Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 12:50 +0100
        Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2016-01-20 13:00 +0100
          Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 13:10 +0100
            Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and  flush_to_ldisc One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> - 2016-01-20 16:00 +0100
              Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> - 2016-01-20 16:20 +0100
                Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and flush_to_ldisc Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-01-20 17:40 +0100
  Re: tty: deadlock between n_tracerouter_receivebuf and  flush_to_ldisc J Freyensee <james_p_freyensee@linux.intel.com> - 2016-01-20 03:10 +0100

csiph-web