io_uring: fix possible deadlock in io_register_iowq_max_workers()

commit 73254a297c2dd094abec7c9efee32455ae875bdf upstream.

The io_register_iowq_max_workers() function calls io_put_sq_data(),
which acquires the sqd->lock without releasing the uring_lock.
Similar to the commit 009ad9f ("io_uring: drop ctx->uring_lock
before acquiring sqd->lock"), this can lead to a potential deadlock
situation.

To resolve this issue, the uring_lock is released before calling
io_put_sq_data(), and then it is re-acquired after the function call.

This change ensures that the locks are acquired in the correct
order, preventing the possibility of a deadlock.

Suggested-by: Maximilian Heyne <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Hagar Hemdan <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>

Author: hagarhem

io_uring/io_uring.c

@@ -3921,8 +3921,10 @@ static __cold int io_register_iowq_max_workers(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
 	}
 
 	if (sqd) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
 		mutex_unlock(&sqd->lock);
 		io_put_sq_data(sqd);
+		mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock);
 	}
 
 	if (copy_to_user(arg, new_count, sizeof(new_count)))
@@ -3947,8 +3949,11 @@ static __cold int io_register_iowq_max_workers(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx,
 	return 0;
 err:
 	if (sqd) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ctx->uring_lock);
 		mutex_unlock(&sqd->lock);
 		io_put_sq_data(sqd);
+		mutex_lock(&ctx->uring_lock);
+
 	}
 	return ret;
 }