On 2/28/21 9:18 PM, syzbot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> syzbot has tested the proposed patch but the reproducer is still triggering an issue:
> possible deadlock in io_poll_double_wake
>
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 5.11.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> syz-executor.0/10241 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff888012e09130 (&runtime->sleep){..-.}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:354 [inline]
> ffff888012e09130 (&runtime->sleep){..-.}-{2:2}, at: io_poll_double_wake+0x25f/0x6a0 fs/io_uring.c:4921
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff888013b00130 (&runtime->sleep){..-.}-{2:2}, at: __wake_up_common_lock+0xb4/0x130 kernel/sched/wait.c:137
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&runtime->sleep);
> lock(&runtime->sleep);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
Since the fix is in yet this keeps failing (and I didn't get it), I looked
closer at this report. While the names of the locks are the same, they are
really two different locks. So let's try this...
#syz test: git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block syzbot-test
--
Jens Axboe
