Linux-mm Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ThangNN99 <ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>, Harry Yoo <harry@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Hao Li <hao.li@linux.dev>, Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev,
	ThangNN99 <ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>,
	syzbot+acf142088e0182172e58@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: [PATCH] mm/slab: don't use kfree_rcu sheaves on PREEMPT_RT in kvfree_call_rcu()
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 12:38:46 +0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260831053846.107974-1-ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com> (raw)

syzbot reports a possible circular locking dependency between
&p->pi_lock and the per-CPU kfree_rcu sheaf lock (_T->lock) on
PREEMPT_RT:

  __balance_push_cpu_stop()               [holds p->pi_lock, raw]
    select_fallback_rq()
      cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback()
        set_cpus_allowed_force()
          kfree_rcu(ac.user_mask)
            kvfree_call_rcu()
              kfree_rcu_sheaf()
                __kfree_rcu_sheaf()
                  local_trylock(&s->cpu_sheaves->lock)   <- _T->lock

set_cpus_allowed_force() uses kfree_rcu() instead of kfree() here
specifically because it can be called with p->pi_lock (a raw
spinlock) held, and plain kfree() may sleep under PREEMPT_RT.

Commit 2a8bb29ec9b2 ("mm/slab: allow kfree_rcu_sheaf() on
PREEMPT_RT") made kvfree_call_rcu() try the sheaves fast path on
PREEMPT_RT too, since __kfree_rcu_sheaf() only trylocks there and
so cannot itself block. True, but the sheaf/barn locks it trylocks
are also taken as regular, blocking locks elsewhere, so lockdep
still records a lock-class ordering cycle against any raw spinlock
already held by the caller, which is what syzbot caught.

The plain kfree_rcu()/kvfree_rcu() API gives kvfree_call_rcu() no
way to know the caller is in such a context, so keep it
conservative on PREEMPT_RT and skip the sheaves layer there,
falling back to the existing raw_spinlock_t-protected krcp list,
which is always safe to nest under another raw spinlock. This
restores the pre-2a8bb29ec9b2 behavior of kvfree_call_rcu().

kfree_call_rcu_nolock(), added later in commit 3bc999d944b3
("mm/slab: introduce kfree_rcu_nolock()") for unknown/atomic
contexts, is unaffected: it already falls back to a lock-free
defer_kfree_rcu() when the sheaves trylock doesn't pan out, so it
keeps using SLAB_FREE_NOLOCK on PREEMPT_RT. Callers like
set_cpus_allowed_force() that want the sheaves fast path under a
raw spinlock should migrate to that API instead.

Reported-by: syzbot+acf142088e0182172e58@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=acf142088e0182172e58
Fixes: 2a8bb29ec9b2 ("mm/slab: allow kfree_rcu_sheaf() on PREEMPT_RT")
Signed-off-by: ThangNN99 <ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>
---
 mm/slab_common.c | 9 ++++++++-
 mm/slub.c        | 7 ++++---
 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index b19ba1b31484..6d6cd78d00c4 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -2034,7 +2034,14 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct kvfree_rcu_head *head, void *ptr)
 	if (!head)
 		might_sleep();
 
-	if (kfree_rcu_sheaf(ptr))
+	/*
+	 * Callers may hold a raw spinlock here on PREEMPT_RT (e.g.
+	 * set_cpus_allowed_force() with p->pi_lock held), and the sheaf/barn
+	 * locks are also taken as blocking locks elsewhere, so trying them
+	 * here creates a lockdep-visible ordering conflict. Skip sheaves on
+	 * PREEMPT_RT; use kfree_rcu_nolock() instead if this doesn't apply.
+	 */
+	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) && kfree_rcu_sheaf(ptr))
 		return;
 
 	// Queue the object but don't yet schedule the batch.
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index f9b56cb439e7..83bc322557f8 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -6088,10 +6088,11 @@ static void rcu_free_sheaf(struct rcu_head *head)
 /*
  * kvfree_call_rcu() can be called while holding a raw_spinlock_t. Since
  * __kfree_rcu_sheaf() may acquire a spinlock_t (sleeping lock on PREEMPT_RT),
- * this would violate lock nesting rules. Therefore, kvfree_call_rcu() avoids
- * this problem by passing SLAB_FREE_NOLOCK on PREEMPT_RT.
+ * this would violate lock nesting rules. kvfree_call_rcu() avoids this by
+ * bypassing the sheaves layer on PREEMPT_RT; use kfree_call_rcu_nolock()
+ * instead for atomic/unknown-context callers that need the sheaves path.
  *
- * However, lockdep still complains that it is invalid to acquire spinlock_t
+ * lockdep still complains that it is invalid to acquire spinlock_t
  * while holding raw_spinlock_t, even on !PREEMPT_RT where spinlock_t is a
  * spinning lock. Tell lockdep that acquiring spinlock_t is valid here
  * by temporarily raising the wait-type to LD_WAIT_CONFIG. Skip the lockdep map
-- 
2.43.0



             reply	other threads:[~2026-08-31  5:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-31  5:38 ThangNN99 [this message]
2026-08-31  6:06 ` [PATCH v2] mm/slab: don't use kfree_rcu sheaves on PREEMPT_RT in kvfree_call_rcu() ThangNN99
2026-08-31 13:00   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-08-31 13:32     ` [PATCH v3] " ThangNN99
2026-08-31 14:35       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-08-31 16:04         ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-08-31 16:17           ` [PATCH] mm/slab: don't use kfree_rcu_sheaf() on PREEMPT_RT again ThangNN99
2026-09-02 10:05         ` [PATCH v3] mm/slab: don't use kfree_rcu sheaves on PREEMPT_RT in kvfree_call_rcu() Harry Yoo

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=20260831053846.107974-1-ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com \
    --to=ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.org \
    --cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
    --cc=hao.li@linux.dev \
    --cc=harry@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=syzbot+acf142088e0182172e58@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
    --cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox