On Mon, 08 Jun 2020 12:06:32 +0200,
Michał Mirosław wrote:
>
> Add and use snd_pcm_stream_lock_nested() in snd_pcm_link/unlink
> implementation. The code is fine, but generates a lockdep complaint:
>
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 5.7.1mq+ #381 Tainted: G O
> --------------------------------------------
> pulseaudio/4180 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff888402d6f508 (&group->lock){-...}-{2:2}, at: snd_pcm_common_ioctl+0xda8/0xee0 [snd_pcm]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff8883f7a8cf18 (&group->lock){-...}-{2:2}, at: snd_pcm_common_ioctl+0xe4e/0xee0 [snd_pcm]
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&group->lock);
> lock(&group->lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 2 locks held by pulseaudio/4180:
> #0: ffffffffa1a05190 (snd_pcm_link_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: snd_pcm_common_ioctl+0xca0/0xee0 [snd_pcm]
> #1: ffff8883f7a8cf18 (&group->lock){-...}-{2:2}, at: snd_pcm_common_ioctl+0xe4e/0xee0 [snd_pcm]
> [...]
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fixes: f57f3df03a8e ("ALSA: pcm: More fine-grained PCM link locking")
> Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Applied now. Thanks.
Takashi
