On 3/6/26 7:30 AM, Michal Luczaj wrote:
bpf_iter_unix_seq_show() may deadlock when lock_sock_fast() takes the fast
path and the iter prog attempts to update a sockmap. Which ends up spinning
at sock_map_update_elem()'s bh_lock_sock():
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
test_progs/1393 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at:
sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at: __lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(slock-AF_UNIX);
lock(slock-AF_UNIX);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
4 locks held by test_progs/1393:
#0: ffff88814b59c790 (&p->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: bpf_seq_read+0x59/0x10d0
#1: ffff88811ec25fd8 (sk_lock-AF_UNIX){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0
#2: ffff88811ec25f58 (slock-AF_UNIX){+...}-{3:3}, at:
__lock_sock_fast+0x37/0xe0
#3: ffffffff85a6a7c0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at:
bpf_iter_run_prog+0x51d/0xb00
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x5d/0x80
print_deadlock_bug.cold+0xc0/0xce
__lock_acquire+0x130f/0x2590
lock_acquire+0x14e/0x2b0
_raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40
sock_map_update_elem+0xdb/0x1f0
bpf_prog_2d0075e5d9b721cd_dump_unix+0x55/0x4f4
bpf_iter_run_prog+0x5b9/0xb00
bpf_iter_unix_seq_show+0x1f7/0x2e0
bpf_seq_read+0x42c/0x10d0
vfs_read+0x171/0xb20
ksys_read+0xff/0x200
do_syscall_64+0x6b/0x3a0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
Suggested-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <[email protected]>
Suggested-by: Martin KaFai Lau <[email protected]>
Fixes: 2c860a43dd77 ("bpf: af_unix: Implement BPF iterator for UNIX domain
socket.")
Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jiayuan Chen <[email protected]>
