From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@windriver.com>
Cc: jirislaby@kernel.org, socketcan@hartkopp.net,
linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, mkl@pengutronix.de,
linux-can@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
horms@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: ldisc: fix deadlock between ldisc_sem and rtnl_mutex
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 09:57:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2026071655-steering-cardstock-cd06@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260716064719.1401892-1-yun.zhou@windriver.com>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 02:47:19PM +0800, Yun Zhou wrote:
> syzbot reported a circular lock dependency involving tty ldisc_sem and
> the networking rtnl_mutex. The full chain is:
>
> rtnl_mutex --> nft_commit_mutex --> ... --> ep->mtx --> ldisc_sem --> rtnl_mutex
>
> The last edge (ldisc_sem -> rtnl_mutex) is created because tty line
> discipline .open() callbacks (slcan, slip) call register_netdev() which
> acquires rtnl_mutex, and .open() runs under ldisc_sem write lock in
> tty_set_ldisc().
>
> Fix by moving the .open() call outside the ldisc_sem write lock. The
> ldisc .open() is initialization of the NEW discipline after the old one
> has been closed - there is no need for ldisc_sem protection at this
> point since:
>
> - tty_lock is held throughout, preventing concurrent tty_set_ldisc,
> hangup, or close
> - tty->ldisc is set to NULL during the window, so concurrent readers
> (tty_ldisc_ref, tty_ldisc_ref_wait) see NULL and return immediately,
> which callers already handle as a hangup condition
> - tty buffer data stays queued until the ldisc is installed
>
> The sequence becomes:
> 1. Hold ldisc_sem(write): close old ldisc, set tty->ldisc = NULL
> 2. Release ldisc_sem(write)
> 3. Call new_ldisc->ops->open() without ldisc_sem
> 4. Re-acquire ldisc_sem(write): install new ldisc (or restore old)
> 5. Release ldisc_sem(write)
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+de610eeef174bd59a8a3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=de610eeef174bd59a8a3
> Signed-off-by: Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@windriver.com>
> ---
> drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
What commit caused this to be a problem and why have we not seen this in
any real-world usages?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c b/drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c
> index 27fe8236f662..248a6995cc53 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c
> @@ -556,15 +556,28 @@ int tty_set_ldisc(struct tty_struct *tty, int disc)
> /* Shutdown the old discipline. */
> tty_ldisc_close(tty, old_ldisc);
>
> - /* Now set up the new line discipline. */
> - tty->ldisc = new_ldisc;
> + /* Clear tty->ldisc so concurrent readers back off during transition */
> + tty->ldisc = NULL;
> tty_set_termios_ldisc(tty, disc);
> + tty_ldisc_unlock(tty);
>
> + /*
> + * Open the new discipline outside ldisc_sem. The ldisc .open()
> + * may acquire locks (e.g., rtnl_mutex) that would create circular
> + * dependencies if taken under ldisc_sem. tty_lock is still held,
> + * preventing concurrent ldisc changes and hangup.
> + */
> retval = tty_ldisc_open(tty, new_ldisc);
Now you are calling open when previously we were not, are you sure this
isn't going to cause problems?
> +
> + tty_ldisc_lock(tty, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
Why that timeout?
> +
> if (retval < 0) {
> /* Back to the old one or N_TTY if we can't */
> tty_ldisc_put(new_ldisc);
> tty_ldisc_restore(tty, old_ldisc);
> + } else {
> + /* Success - install new ldisc */
> + tty->ldisc = new_ldisc;
> }
Does open cause anything else to be incremented that you have to clean
up when done that you aren't doing here?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-16 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-16 6:47 [PATCH] tty: ldisc: fix deadlock between ldisc_sem and rtnl_mutex Yun Zhou
2026-07-16 7:57 ` Greg KH [this message]
2026-07-16 7:59 ` Jagielski, Jedrzej
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2026071655-steering-cardstock-cd06@gregkh \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
--cc=yun.zhou@windriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.