On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 01:59:32AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 03:54:09PM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:39:21PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > > [Boqun Feng Cc'd]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 03:26:21AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 7:41 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU1: ptrace(2)
> > > > > ptrace_check_attach()
> > > > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU2: setpgid(2)
> > > > > write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
> > > > > spins
> > > > >
> > > > > CPU1: takes an interrupt that would call kill_fasync(). grep and the
> > > > > first instance of kill_fasync() is in hpet_interrupt() - it's not
> > > > > something exotic. IRQs disabled on CPU2 won't stop it.
> > > > > kill_fasync(..., SIGIO, ...)
> > > > > kill_fasync_rcu()
> > > > > read_lock_irqsave(&fa->fa_lock, flags);
> > > > > send_sigio()
> > > > > read_lock_irqsave(&fown->lock, flags);
> > > > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > ... and CPU1 spins as well.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. See kernel/locking/qrwlock.c:
> > >
> > > [snip rwlocks are inherently unfair, queued ones are somewhat milder, but
> > > all implementations have writers-starving behaviour for read_lock() at least
> > > when in_interrupt()]
> > >
> > > D'oh... Consider requested "Al, you are a moron" duly delivered... I plead
> > > having been on way too low caffeine and too little sleep ;-/
> > >
> > > Looking at the original report, looks like the scenario there is meant to be
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > CPU1: read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
> > > tasklist_lock grabbed
> > >
> > > CPU2: get an sg write(2) feeding request to libata; host->lock is taken,
> > > request is immediately completed and scsi_done() is about to be called.
> > > host->lock grabbed
> > >
> > > CPU3: write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
> > > spins on tasklist_lock until CPU1 gets through.
> > >
> > > CPU2: get around to kill_fasync() called by sg_rq_end_io() and to grabbing
> > > tasklist_lock inside send_sigio()
> > > spins, since it's not in an interrupt and there's a pending writer
> > > host->lock is held, spin until CPU3 gets through.
> >
> > Right, for a reader not in_interrupt(), it may be blocked by a random
> > waiting writer because of the fairness, even the lock is currently held
> > by a reader:
> >
> > CPU 1 CPU 2 CPU 3
> > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); // get the lock
> >
> > write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock); // wait for the lock
> >
> > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); // cannot get the lock because of the fairness
>
> IOW, any caller of scsi_done() from non-interrupt context while
> holding a spinlock that is also taken in an interrupt...
>
> And we have drivers/scsi/scsi_error.c:scsi_send_eh_cmnd(), which calls
> ->queuecommand() under a mutex, with
> #define DEF_SCSI_QCMD(func_name) \
> int func_name(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd) \
> { \
> unsigned long irq_flags; \
> int rc; \
> spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, irq_flags); \
> rc = func_name##_lck(cmd); \
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock, irq_flags); \
> return rc; \
> }
>
> being commonly used for ->queuecommand() instances. So any scsi_done()
> in foo_lck() (quite a few of such) + use of ->host_lock in interrupt
> for the same driver (also common)...
>
> I wonder why that hadn't triggered the same warning a long time
> ago - these warnings had been around for at least two years.
>
FWIW, the complete dependency chain is:
&host->lock --> &new->fa_lock --> &f->f_owner.lock --> tasklist_lock
for the "&f->f_owner.lock" part to get into lockdep's radar, the
following call trace needs to appear once:
kill_fasync():
kill_fasync_rcu():
send_sigio()
not sure whether it's rare or not though. And ->fa_lock also had its own
issue:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210702091831.615042-1-desmondcheongzx@xxxxxxxxx/
which may have covered &host->lock for a while ;-)
Regards,
Boqun
> Am I missing something here?
