Re: [PATCH v2] firmware_loader: Fix recursive lock in device_cache_fw_images()
"Danilo Krummrich" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.syzbot,dev.linux.lists.driver-core,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri May 29, 2026 at 5:09 PM CEST, syzbot wrote: > From: Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]> > > A recursive locking deadlock can occur in the firmware loader's power > management notification handler. > > During system suspend or hibernation preparation, fw_pm_notify() calls > device_cache_fw_images(). This function acquires fw_lock to set the > firmware cache state to FW_LOADER_START_CACHE and then iterates over all > devices using dpm_for_each_dev() while still holding the lock. > > For each device, dev_cache_fw_image() schedules asynchronous work to cache > the firmware. If memory allocation for the async work entry fails (e.g., in > out-of-memory conditions), async_schedule_node_domain() falls back to > executing the work function synchronously in the current thread. > > The synchronous execution path (__async_dev_cache_fw_image() -> > cache_firmware() -> request_firmware() -> assign_fw()) attempts to acquire > fw_lock again. Since the current thread already holds fw_lock, this results > in a recursive locking deadlock. > > Fix this by releasing fw_lock immediately after updating the cache state > and before calling dpm_for_each_dev(). The lock is only needed to protect > the state update. Concurrent firmware requests will correctly see the > FW_LOADER_START_CACHE state and use the piggyback mechanism, which is > independently protected by its own fwc->name_lock. > > Fixes: ac39b3ea73aa ("firmware loader: let caching firmware piggyback on loading firmware") > Assisted-by: Gemini:gemini-3.1-pro-preview Gemini:gemini-3-flash-preview syzbot > Reported-by: [email protected] > Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e70e4c6f6eee43357ba7 > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/ai_job?id=8b4af9fd-24af-423f-8acb-1159fd34c1a5 > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <[email protected]> I think Sashiko found an orthogonal issue that looks valid at a first glance, in case you are interested to dig in further. [1] https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/48b092a5-f49d-48a4-95f4-f65bebfc6bc3%40mail.kernel.org