References: <9d9b9652-c1ac-58e9-2eab-9256c17b1da2@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <7d1021f1-c88e-5a03-3b92-087f9be37491@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <Y9z76ZLe4On96xIN@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <Y9z+SerR8mlZYo16@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <6c47dbcf-2a17-6bb2-719b-841d851c603b@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <Y90ar35uKQoUrLEK@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <caa13441-5f95-b7d6-dd5d-1cf49e709714@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <Y+Eh9CFdTwwv+hot@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <Y+pWzult7UDgoilC@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <m21qmkahoj.fsf@gmail.com>
 <Y/Xhsna3gfadzAAk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-agent: mu4e 1.8.10; emacs 29.0.60
From:   Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        syzbot <syzbot+6cd18e123583550cf469@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING: locking bug in umh_complete
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:57:36 +0800
In-reply-to: <Y/Xhsna3gfadzAAk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <m2h6v7ilo6.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk


Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:31:58AM +0800, Schspa Shi wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>
>> > If so, perhaps the simplest rule would to be ensure there is an
>> > unconditional uninterruptible wait-for-completion() before going out of
>> > scope.
>> >
>> > This latter can be spelled like wait_for_completion() or
>> > wait_for_completion_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE). More specifically,
>> > TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and TASK_WAKEKILL must not be set in the state mask
>> > for the wait to be uninterruptible.
>> >
>> > If it cannot be proven, raise a warning and audit or somesuch.
>> 
>> This is a good suggestion. I have written a SmPL patch to complete this
>> check, and now I need to rule out the situation that the driver has
>> added an additional lock to protect it.
>> 
>> And I have found a lot of bad usage, should we consider adding a new
>> helper API to simplify the fix this?
>
> Please first share some of the locations where this would be applied.

Hi Peter:

I started a new thread to discuss the SmPL patch.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230227075346.69658-1-schspa@gmail.com/

-- 
BRs
Schspa Shi