Re: [PATCH v3] tty: ldisc: fix deadlock between ldisc_sem and rtnl_mutex

"Zhou, Yun" <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:54:31 +0800
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-can,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-serial,org.kernel.vger.netdev
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 7/30/2026 10:50 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 04:46:48PM +0800, Yun Zhou wrote:
>> syzbot reported a circular lock dependency involving tty ldisc_sem and
>> the networking rtnl_mutex. The full chain is:
>>
>>    rtnl_mutex --> nft_commit_mutex --> ... --> ep->mtx --> ldisc_sem --> rtnl_mutex
>>
>> The last edge (ldisc_sem -> rtnl_mutex) is created because tty line
>> discipline .open() callbacks (slcan, slip) call register_netdev() which
>> acquires rtnl_mutex, and .open() runs under ldisc_sem write lock in
>> tty_set_ldisc().
>>
>> Fix by moving the .open() call outside the ldisc_sem write lock. The
>> ldisc .open() is initialization of the NEW discipline after the old one
>> has been closed - there is no need for ldisc_sem protection at this
>> point since:
>>
>>   - tty_lock is held throughout, preventing concurrent tty_set_ldisc,
>>     hangup, or close
>>   - tty->ldisc is set to NULL during the window. tty_ldisc_ref_wait()
>>     waits for the transition to complete. tty_ldisc_ref() returns NULL
>>     which callers already handle.
>>   - tty buffer data stays queued until the ldisc is installed
>>
>> The sequence becomes:
>>    1. Hold ldisc_sem(write): close old ldisc, set tty->ldisc = NULL
>>    2. Release ldisc_sem(write)
>>    3. Call new_ldisc->ops->open() without ldisc_sem
>>    4. Re-acquire ldisc_sem(write): install new ldisc (or restore old)
>>    5. Release ldisc_sem(write)
>>
>> Reported-by: [email protected]
>> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=de610eeef174bd59a8a3
>> Signed-off-by: Yun Zhou <[email protected]>
>> ---
> 
> Sashiko has some comments:
>          https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]
> are they correct?
> 

I've already responded to Sashiko about the "New issue" - this scenario 
does not exist [1] . I'm not sure why my reply didn't CC you - my bad.

https://sashiko.dev/#/message/3894bbdd-1930-4ad4-8b28-431a162aece0%40windriver.com

As for the pre-existing issue, it's very hard to trigger and practically 
impossible in real-world scenarios. If we really need to fix it, I'll 
send a separate patch series for it later.

BR,
Yun