Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in io_poll_double_wake (2)
To:     syzbot <syzbot+28abd693db9e92c160d8@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        asml.silence@gmail.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
References: <000000000000a52fb105bc71e7b8@google.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <586d357d-8c4c-8875-3a1c-0599a0a64da0@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 2 Mar 2021 10:20:05 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <000000000000a52fb105bc71e7b8@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/28/21 9:18 PM, syzbot wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> syzbot has tested the proposed patch but the reproducer is still triggering an issue:
> possible deadlock in io_poll_double_wake
> 
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 5.11.0-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> syz-executor.0/10241 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff888012e09130 (&runtime->sleep){..-.}-{2:2}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:354 [inline]
> ffff888012e09130 (&runtime->sleep){..-.}-{2:2}, at: io_poll_double_wake+0x25f/0x6a0 fs/io_uring.c:4921
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff888013b00130 (&runtime->sleep){..-.}-{2:2}, at: __wake_up_common_lock+0xb4/0x130 kernel/sched/wait.c:137
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>        CPU0
>        ----
>   lock(&runtime->sleep);
>   lock(&runtime->sleep);
> 
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
>  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

Since the fix is in yet this keeps failing (and I didn't get it), I looked
closer at this report. While the names of the locks are the same, they are
really two different locks. So let's try this...

#syz test: git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block syzbot-test

-- 
Jens Axboe