IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
The SQPOLL thread dictates the lock order, and we hold the ctx->uring_lock
for all the registration opcodes. We also hold a ref to the ctx, and we
do drop the lock for other reasons to quiesce, so it's fine to drop the
ctx lock temporarily to grab the sqd->lock. This fixes the following
lockdep splat:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.14.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor.5/25433 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff888023426870 (&sqd->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: io_register_iowq_max_workers fs/io_uring.c:10551 [inline]
ffff888023426870 (&sqd->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __io_uring_register fs/io_uring.c:10757 [inline]
ffff888023426870 (&sqd->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __do_sys_io_uring_register+0x10aa/0x2e70 fs/io_uring.c:10792
but task is already holding lock:
ffff8880885b40a8 (&ctx->uring_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __do_sys_io_uring_register+0x2e1/0x2e70 fs/io_uring.c:10791
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&ctx->uring_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:596 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x131/0x12f0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729
__io_sq_thread fs/io_uring.c:7291 [inline]
io_sq_thread+0x65a/0x1370 fs/io_uring.c:7368
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295
-> #0 (&sqd->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3051 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3174 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3789 [inline]
__lock_acquire+0x2a07/0x54a0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5015
lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5625 [inline]
lock_acquire+0x1ab/0x510 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5590
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:596 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x131/0x12f0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729
io_register_iowq_max_workers fs/io_uring.c:10551 [inline]
__io_uring_register fs/io_uring.c:10757 [inline]
__do_sys_io_uring_register+0x10aa/0x2e70 fs/io_uring.c:10792
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&ctx->uring_lock);
lock(&sqd->lock);
lock(&ctx->uring_lock);
lock(&sqd->lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
Fixes: 2e480058ddc2 ("io-wq: provide a way to limit max number of workers")
Reported-by: syzbot+97fa56483f69d677969f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
009ad9f0c6