From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: drj19981414013@gmail.com,
DAI RENJIE via B4 Relay
<devnull+drj19981414013.gmail.com@kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Bradley Morgan <include@grrlz.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] resource: fix lost wakeup when waiting for a muxed region
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:42:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260826194217.GA1552174@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260821113457.8622c5d35c9aec838490b013@linux-foundation.org>
[+to Ilpo]
On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 11:34:57AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 14:08:17 +0000 DAI RENJIE via B4 Relay <devnull+drj19981414013.gmail.com@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > From: DAI RENJIE <drj19981414013@gmail.com>
> >
> > A task waiting for a muxed region can sleep forever in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > even though the region it waits for is already free.
> > __request_region_locked() queues itself on muxed_resource_wait and drops
> > resource_lock before setting TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, while __release_region()
> > wakes the queue after dropping the same lock. A wakeup landing in between
> > finds TASK_RUNNING, does not match TASK_NORMAL and is discarded; callers
> > hold a muxed region only across a bounded transaction, so no further
> > release is coming. The task is unkillable and its caller never returns.
> >
> > The window is one store wide, but an interrupt is enough to hold the waiter
> > in it, and the machine this was seen on runs PREEMPT_DYNAMIC in its
> > voluntary default. Since v6.11 spd5118 exports the DDR5 sensors of AMD
> > boards through i2c-piix4, which takes a muxed region per SMBus transaction;
> > a third of the in-tree users of request_muxed_region() are hwmon drivers,
> > so reading a world-readable attribute is all an unprivileged user needs to
> > drive the contention. The blocked task sleeps holding the i2c adapter bus
> > lock, and 27 more piled up behind it.
> >
> > Fix it by setting the task state before dropping resource_lock, as
> > prepare_to_wait() does: the releasing side needs resource_lock to unlink
> > the resource, so it cannot reach the wakeup before the state is published.
> >
> > Fixes: 8b6d043b7ee2 ("resource: shared I/O region support")
>
> 16 years ago.
>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-5
> > Signed-off-by: DAI RENJIE <drj19981414013@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > Reproduced by building a kernel with the two orderings selectable at
> > runtime and a 2ms delay inside the window. Switching only that knob, a
> > two-thread barriered reproducer loses the wakeup 200 times out of 200
> > before the fix and 0 out of 200 after it; without the delay it goes 20000
> > times through the wait path and loses none.
> > ---
> > kernel/resource.c | 2 +-
>
> Bjorn, please consider a MAINTAINERS entry?
Maybe you'd be interested, Ilpo, since you're doing so much PCI
resource work?
> > --- a/kernel/resource.c
> > +++ b/kernel/resource.c
> > @@ -1350,8 +1350,8 @@ static int __request_region_locked(struct resource *res, struct resource *parent
> > }
> > if (conflict->flags & flags & IORESOURCE_MUXED) {
> > add_wait_queue(&muxed_resource_wait, &wait);
> > - write_unlock(&resource_lock);
> > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + write_unlock(&resource_lock);
> > schedule();
> > remove_wait_queue(&muxed_resource_wait, &wait);
> > write_lock(&resource_lock);
>
> Yup, that's a basic waitqueue usage bug.
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-26 19:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-21 14:08 DAI RENJIE via B4 Relay
2026-08-21 17:42 ` Bradley Morgan
2026-08-21 18:34 ` Andrew Morton
2026-08-21 19:13 ` Bradley Morgan
2026-08-26 19:42 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
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=20260826194217.GA1552174@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=devnull+drj19981414013.gmail.com@kernel.org \
--cc=drj19981414013@gmail.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=include@grrlz.net \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®