You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A lockdep reports a possible deadlock in the find_vmap_area_exceed_addr_lock()
function:
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.9.0-rc1-00060-ged3ccc57b108-dirty #6140 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
drgn/455 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff0000c00131d0 (&vn->busy.lock/1){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: find_vmap_area_exceed_addr_lock+0x64/0x124
but task is already holding lock:
ffff0000c0011878 (&vn->busy.lock/1){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: find_vmap_area_exceed_addr_lock+0x64/0x124
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&vn->busy.lock/1);
lock(&vn->busy.lock/1);
*** DEADLOCK ***
indeed it can happen if the find_vmap_area_exceed_addr_lock() gets called
concurrently because it tries to acquire two nodes locks. It was done to
prevent removing a lowest VA found on a previous step.
To address this a lowest VA is found first without holding a node lock
where it resides. As a last step we check if a VA still there because it
can go away, if removed, proceed with next lowest.
[[email protected]: fix comment typos, per Baoquan]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Fixes: 53becf3 ("mm: vmalloc: support multiple nodes in vread_iter")
Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Omar Sandoval <[email protected]>
Reported-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: Baoquan He <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave Chinner <[email protected]>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <[email protected]>
Cc: Oleksiy Avramchenko <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
0 commit comments