On Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:36:27 +0200 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 04:38:10PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > SNIP > > > > > > > The code within the kretprobe handler checks for probe reentrancy, > > > so we won't trigger any _raw_spin_lock_irqsave probe in there. > > > > > > The problem is in outside kprobe_flush_task, where we call: > > > > > > kprobe_flush_task > > > kretprobe_table_lock > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > > > > > where _raw_spin_lock_irqsave triggers the kretprobe and installs > > > kretprobe_trampoline handler on _raw_spin_lock_irqsave return. > > > > > > The kretprobe_trampoline handler is then executed with already > > > locked kretprobe_table_locks, and first thing it does is to > > > lock kretprobe_table_locks ;-) the whole lockup path like: > > > > > > kprobe_flush_task > > > kretprobe_table_lock > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave ---> probe triggered, kretprobe_trampoline installed > > > > > > ---> kretprobe_table_locks locked > > > > > > kretprobe_trampoline > > > trampoline_handler > > > kretprobe_hash_lock(current, &head, &flags); <--- deadlock > > > > > > Adding kprobe_busy_begin/end helpers that mark code with fake > > > probe installed to prevent triggering of another kprobe within > > > this code. > > > > > > Using these helpers in kprobe_flush_task, so the probe recursion > > > protection check is hit and the probe is never set to prevent > > > above lockup. > > > > > > > Thanks Jiri! > > > > Ingo, could you pick this up? > > Ingo, any chance you could take this one? Hi Ingo, Should I make a pull request for all kprobes related patches to you? Thank you, -- Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
