Syzbot reported the below lockdep splat:
WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
5.6.0-rc7-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor.0/10317 just changed the state of lock:
ffff888021d16568 (&(&info->lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
ffff888021d16568 (&(&info->lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: shmem_mfill_atomic_pte+0x1012/0x21c0 mm/shmem.c:2407
but this lock was taken by another, SOFTIRQ-safe lock in the past:
(&(&xa->xa_lock)->rlock#5){..-.}
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&(&info->lock)->rlock);
local_irq_disable();
lock(&(&xa->xa_lock)->rlock#5);
lock(&(&info->lock)->rlock);
<Interrupt>
lock(&(&xa->xa_lock)->rlock#5);
*** DEADLOCK ***
The full report is quite lengthy, please see:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/alpine.LSU.2.11.2004152007370.13597@eggly.anvils/T/#m813b412c5f78e25ca8c6c7734886ed4de43f241d
It is because CPU 0 held info->lock with IRQ enabled in userfaultfd_copy
path, then CPU 1 is splitting a THP which held xa_lock and info->lock in
IRQ disabled context at the same time. If softirq comes in to acquire
xa_lock, the deadlock would be triggered.
The fix is to acquire/release info->lock with *_irq version instead of
plain spin_{lock,unlock} to make it softirq safe.
Fixes: 4c27fe4c4c ("userfaultfd: shmem: add shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte for userfaultfd support")
Reported-by: syzbot+e27980339d305f2dbfd9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Tested-by: syzbot+e27980339d305f2dbfd9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1587061357-122619-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
94b7cc01da