Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:46:17 +0900
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc:     Yao HongBo <yaohongbo@huawei.com>, linuxarm@huawei.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in console_unlock
Message-ID: <20190216073856.GA9979@tigerII.localdomain>
References: <ebc01f4f-5b1d-4f8a-1d0d-463d5218ee45@huawei.com>
 <20190216072127.GA1945@tigerII.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190216072127.GA1945@tigerII.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (02/16/19 16:21), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (02/16/19 14:36), Yao HongBo wrote:
> > hi, sergey:
> > 
> > As shown in that link, https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/6/397
> > 
> > On the linux kernel 5.0-rc6, Syzkaller also hit 'possible deadlock in console_unlock'
> > bug for several times in my environment.
> > 
> > This solution fixes things for me. Do you have a plan to submit patches to
> > solve this problem.
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c b/drivers/tty/tty_buffer.c
> > 	__printk_safe_enter();
> > 	kmalloc(sizeof(struct tty_buffer) + 2 * size, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > 	__printk_safe_exit();
> 
> I would probably try the following:

Yao HongBo, could you please post the lockdep splat?

GFP_NOWARN is probably the best option for now. Yes, it, maybe,
will not work for fault-injection cases; but printk_safe approach
is harder to push for, especially given that printk_safe maybe will
not even exist in the future.

	-ss