Re: [syzbot] [kernel?] possible deadlock in stack_depot_put

[Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>]

On Tue 2023-12-05 21:00:46, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2023/12/05 20:31, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > Unlike down_trylock(), mutex_trylock() is unable to trigger any lockdep
> > warning, so why is a binary semaphore prefered over mutex?
> 
> The mutex has limitations which makes it impossible to use for console lock.
> 
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc4/source/kernel/locking/mutex.c#L537

In particular, mutexes can't be acquired in an interrupt context not even
via mutex_trylock().

> By the way, this is a KASAN bug saying "refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free.".
> Possibly a candidate for printk_deferred_enter() user?

In practice, it would mean adding

	printk_deferred_enter()
	printk_deferred_exit()

around the KASAN/stackdepot code which might be called in any context
and might print a message. For example, see show_one_worker_pool().

It should be used only when really needed because it reduces the
chance to see the messages.

But honestly, I do not see a better solution. printk_deferred() is
used on many locations inside the scheduler to avoid these deadlocks
between console_sem and rq->lock.

It should be solved by the printk rework introducing per-console
locks. It might eventually allow to get rid of console_sem
completely. But it might be a long ride until all console
drivers get converted.

Best Regards,
Petr