The patch titled Subject: mm/slub: fix a deadlock in show_slab_objects() has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects.patch

This patch should soon appear at http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab... and later at http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab...

Before you just go and hit "reply", please: a) Consider who else should be cc'ed b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's

*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***

The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated there every 3-4 working days

------------------------------------------------------ From: Qian Cai cai@lca.pw Subject: mm/slub: fix a deadlock in show_slab_objects()

A long time ago we fixed a similar deadlock in show_slab_objects() [1]. However, it is apparently due to the commits like 01fb58bcba63 ("slab: remove synchronous synchronize_sched() from memcg cache deactivation path") and 03afc0e25f7f ("slab: get_online_mems for kmem_cache_{create,destroy,shrink}"), this kind of deadlock is back by just reading files in /sys/kernel/slab which will generate a lockdep splat below.

Since the "mem_hotplug_lock" here is only to obtain a stable online node mask while racing with NUMA node hotplug, in the worst case, the results may me miscalculated while doing NUMA node hotplug, but they shall be corrected by later reads of the same files.

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected ------------------------------------------------------ cat/5224 is trying to acquire lock: ffff900012ac3120 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: show_slab_objects+0x94/0x3a8

but task is already holding lock: b8ff009693eee398 (kn->count#45){++++}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x44/0xf0

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (kn->count#45){++++}: lock_acquire+0x31c/0x360 __kernfs_remove+0x290/0x490 kernfs_remove+0x30/0x44 sysfs_remove_dir+0x70/0x88 kobject_del+0x50/0xb0 sysfs_slab_unlink+0x2c/0x38 shutdown_cache+0xa0/0xf0 kmemcg_cache_shutdown_fn+0x1c/0x34 kmemcg_workfn+0x44/0x64 process_one_work+0x4f4/0x950 worker_thread+0x390/0x4bc kthread+0x1cc/0x1e8 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18

-> #1 (slab_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0x31c/0x360 __mutex_lock_common+0x16c/0xf78 mutex_lock_nested+0x40/0x50 memcg_create_kmem_cache+0x38/0x16c memcg_kmem_cache_create_func+0x3c/0x70 process_one_work+0x4f4/0x950 worker_thread+0x390/0x4bc kthread+0x1cc/0x1e8 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18

-> #0 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}: validate_chain+0xd10/0x2bcc __lock_acquire+0x7f4/0xb8c lock_acquire+0x31c/0x360 get_online_mems+0x54/0x150 show_slab_objects+0x94/0x3a8 total_objects_show+0x28/0x34 slab_attr_show+0x38/0x54 sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x198/0x2d4 kernfs_seq_show+0xa4/0xcc seq_read+0x30c/0x8a8 kernfs_fop_read+0xa8/0x314 __vfs_read+0x88/0x20c vfs_read+0xd8/0x10c ksys_read+0xb0/0x120 __arm64_sys_read+0x54/0x88 el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 el0_svc+0x8/0xc

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of: mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> slab_mutex --> kn->count#45

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(kn->count#45); lock(slab_mutex); lock(kn->count#45); lock(mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);

*** DEADLOCK ***

3 locks held by cat/5224: #0: 9eff00095b14b2a0 (&p->lock){+.+.}, at: seq_read+0x4c/0x8a8 #1: 0eff008997041480 (&of->mutex){+.+.}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x34/0xf0 #2: b8ff009693eee398 (kn->count#45){++++}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x44/0xf0

stack backtrace: Call trace: dump_backtrace+0x0/0x248 show_stack+0x20/0x2c dump_stack+0xd0/0x140 print_circular_bug+0x368/0x380 check_noncircular+0x248/0x250 validate_chain+0xd10/0x2bcc __lock_acquire+0x7f4/0xb8c lock_acquire+0x31c/0x360 get_online_mems+0x54/0x150 show_slab_objects+0x94/0x3a8 total_objects_show+0x28/0x34 slab_attr_show+0x38/0x54 sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x198/0x2d4 kernfs_seq_show+0xa4/0xcc seq_read+0x30c/0x8a8 kernfs_fop_read+0xa8/0x314 __vfs_read+0x88/0x20c vfs_read+0xd8/0x10c ksys_read+0xb0/0x120 __arm64_sys_read+0x54/0x88 el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240 el0_svc+0x8/0xc

[1] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1101.0/02850.html

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1570192309-10132-1-git-send-email-cai@lca.pw Fixes: 01fb58bcba63 ("slab: remove synchronous synchronize_sched() from memcg cache deactivation path") Fixes: 03afc0e25f7f ("slab: get_online_mems for kmem_cache_{create,destroy,shrink}") Signed-off-by: Qian Cai cai@lca.pw Acked-by: Michal Hocko mhocko@suse.com Cc: Christoph Lameter cl@linux.com Cc: Pekka Enberg penberg@kernel.org Cc: David Rientjes rientjes@google.com Cc: Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com Cc: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org Cc: Vladimir Davydov vdavydov.dev@gmail.com Cc: Roman Gushchin guro@fb.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org ---

mm/slub.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/mm/slub.c~mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects +++ a/mm/slub.c @@ -4846,7 +4846,13 @@ static ssize_t show_slab_objects(struct } }

- get_online_mems(); + /* + * It is impossible to take "mem_hotplug_lock" here with "kernfs_mutex" + * already held which will conflict with an existing lock order: + * + * mem_hotplug_lock->slab_mutex->kernfs_mutex + */ + #ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG if (flags & SO_ALL) { struct kmem_cache_node *n; @@ -4887,7 +4893,6 @@ static ssize_t show_slab_objects(struct x += sprintf(buf + x, " N%d=%lu", node, nodes[node]); #endif - put_online_mems(); kfree(nodes); return x + sprintf(buf + x, "\n"); } _

Patches currently in -mm which might be from cai@lca.pw are

mm-page_alloc-fix-a-crash-in-free_pages_prepare.patch mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects.patch