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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox