On 3/2/21 11:59 AM, 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
> 5.12.0-rc1-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> syz-executor.4/10454 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff8880343cc130 (&runtime->sleep){..-.}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:354 [inline]
> ffff8880343cc130 (&runtime->sleep){..-.}-{2:2}, at: io_poll_double_wake+0x25f/0x6a0 fs/io_uring.c:4925
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff888034e3b130 (&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);
This still makes no sense to me - naming is the same, but address of waitqueue_head
is not (which is what matters). Unless I'm missing something obvious here.
Anyway, added some debug printks, so let's try again.
#syz test: git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block syzbot-test
--
Jens Axboe
