[ Upstream commit 49b0b6ffe20c5344f4173f3436298782a08da4f2 ]
There's a potential deadlock case when remove the vsock device or
process the RESET event:
vsock_for_each_connected_socket:
spin_lock_bh(&vsock_table_lock) ----------- (1)
...
virtio_vsock_reset_sock:
lock_sock(sk) --------------------- (2)
...
spin_unlock_bh(&vsock_table_lock)
lock_sock() may do initiative schedule when the 'sk' is owned by
other thread at the same time, we would receivce a warning message
that "scheduling while atomic".
Even worse, if the next task (selected by the scheduler) try to
release a 'sk', it need to request vsock_table_lock and the deadlock
occur, cause the system into softlockup state.
Call trace:
queued_spin_lock_slowpath
vsock_remove_bound
vsock_remove_sock
virtio_transport_release
__vsock_release
vsock_release
__sock_release
sock_close
__fput
____fput
So we should not require sk_lock in this case, just like the behavior
in vhost_vsock or vmci.
Fixes: 0ea9e1d3a9 ("VSOCK: Introduce virtio_transport.ko")
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Longpeng(Mike) <longpeng2@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210812053056.1699-1-longpeng2@huawei.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
ad9550114d