Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
workqueue: don't skip lockdep work dependency in cancel_work_sync()
[ Upstream commit c0feea5 ] Like Hillf Danton mentioned syzbot should have been able to catch cancel_work_sync() in work context by checking lockdep_map in __flush_work() for both flush and cancel. in [1], being unable to report an obvious deadlock scenario shown below is broken. From locking dependency perspective, sync version of cancel request should behave as if flush request, for it waits for completion of work if that work has already started execution. ---------- #include <linux/module.h> #include <linux/sched.h> static DEFINE_MUTEX(mutex); static void work_fn(struct work_struct *work) { schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ / 5); mutex_lock(&mutex); mutex_unlock(&mutex); } static DECLARE_WORK(work, work_fn); static int __init test_init(void) { schedule_work(&work); schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ / 10); mutex_lock(&mutex); cancel_work_sync(&work); mutex_unlock(&mutex); return -EINVAL; } module_init(test_init); MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); ---------- The check this patch restores was added by commit 0976dfc ("workqueue: Catch more locking problems with flush_work()"). Then, lockdep's crossrelease feature was added by commit b09be67 ("locking/lockdep: Implement the 'crossrelease' feature"). As a result, this check was once removed by commit fd1a5b0 ("workqueue: Remove now redundant lock acquisitions wrt. workqueue flushes"). But lockdep's crossrelease feature was removed by commit e966eae ("locking/lockdep: Remove the cross-release locking checks"). At this point, this check should have been restored. Then, commit d6e8978 ("workqueue: skip lockdep wq dependency in cancel_work_sync()") introduced a boolean flag in order to distinguish flush_work() and cancel_work_sync(), for checking "struct workqueue_struct" dependency when called from cancel_work_sync() was causing false positives. Then, commit 87915ad ("workqueue: re-add lockdep dependencies for flushing") tried to restore "struct work_struct" dependency check, but by error checked this boolean flag. Like an example shown above indicates, "struct work_struct" dependency needs to be checked for both flush_work() and cancel_work_sync(). Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220504044800.4966-1-hdanton@sina.com [1] Reported-by: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> Suggested-by: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com> Fixes: 87915ad ("workqueue: re-add lockdep dependencies for flushing") Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
- Loading branch information