From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>
To: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"songliubraving@fb.com" <songliubraving@fb.com>
Cc: "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] scsi: reduce protection of scan_mutex in scsi_remove_device
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:17:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1492809452.2499.2.camel@sandisk.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170421211302.2667649-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 14:13 -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> When a device is deleted through sysfs handle "delete", [ ... ]
If I try to use that sysfs attribute then I encounter a deadlock (see
also the report below). How is it possible that you have not hit that
deadlock in your tests?
Bart.
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
4.11.0-rc6-dbg+ #3 Tainted: G I
-------------------------------------------------------
bash/7858 is trying to acquire lock:
(&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff814de090>] scsi_remove_device+0x20/0x40
but task is already holding lock:
(s_active#326){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81293e20>] kernfs_remove_self+0xe0/0x140
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (s_active#326){++++.+}:
lock_acquire+0xd5/0x1c0
__kernfs_remove+0x248/0x310
kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x45/0xa0
remove_files.isra.1+0x35/0x70
sysfs_remove_group+0x44/0x90
sysfs_remove_groups+0x2e/0x50
device_remove_attrs+0x5e/0x80
device_del+0x1fd/0x320
__scsi_remove_device+0xe9/0x120
scsi_forget_host+0x60/0x70
scsi_remove_host+0x71/0x110
0xffffffffa0703690
process_one_work+0x20b/0x6a0
worker_thread+0x4e/0x4a0
kthread+0x113/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x40
-> #0 (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.+.}:
__lock_acquire+0x1109/0x1280
lock_acquire+0xd5/0x1c0
__mutex_lock+0x83/0x980
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
scsi_remove_device+0x20/0x40
sdev_store_delete+0x27/0x30
dev_attr_store+0x18/0x30
sysfs_kf_write+0x45/0x60
kernfs_fop_write+0x13c/0x1c0
__vfs_write+0x28/0x140
vfs_write+0xc8/0x1e0
SyS_write+0x49/0xa0
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x18/0xad
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(s_active#326);
lock(&shost->scan_mutex);
lock(s_active#326);
lock(&shost->scan_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by bash/7858:
#0: (sb_writers#4){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81206b45>] vfs_write+0x195/0x1e0
#1: (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81294af6>] kernfs_fop_write+0x106/0x1c0
#2: (s_active#326){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81293e20>] kernfs_remove_self+0xe0/0x140
stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 7858 Comm: bash Tainted: G I 4.11.0-rc6-dbg+ #3
Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R430/03XKDV, BIOS 1.0.2 11/17/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x68/0x93
print_circular_bug+0x1be/0x210
__lock_acquire+0x1109/0x1280
lock_acquire+0xd5/0x1c0
__mutex_lock+0x83/0x980
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
scsi_remove_device+0x20/0x40
sdev_store_delete+0x27/0x30
dev_attr_store+0x18/0x30
sysfs_kf_write+0x45/0x60
kernfs_fop_write+0x13c/0x1c0
__vfs_write+0x28/0x140
vfs_write+0xc8/0x1e0
SyS_write+0x49/0xa0
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x18/0xad
RIP: 0033:0x7fec0f748500
RSP: 002b:00007ffc1ddaec98 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000046 RCX: 00007fec0f748500
RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: 0000000002012aa0 RDI: 0000000000000001
RBP: 00007ffc1ddaebf0 R08: 00007fec0fa0a740 R09: 00007fec10061100
R10: 0000000000000098 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fec10084bf0
R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 00007ffc1ddaec18
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-21 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-21 21:13 [RFC] scsi: reduce protection of scan_mutex in scsi_remove_device Song Liu
2017-04-21 21:17 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2017-04-21 22:20 ` Song Liu
2017-04-21 21:20 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-04-21 22:31 ` Song Liu
2017-04-25 20:59 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-04-25 21:29 ` Song Liu
2017-04-24 15:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-04-25 17:23 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-04-25 17:42 ` Song Liu
2017-04-25 17:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-04-25 21:17 ` Song Liu
2017-04-25 22:17 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-04-26 0:41 ` Song Liu
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=1492809452.2499.2.camel@sandisk.com \
--to=bart.vanassche@sandisk.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox