A lockdep reports a possible deadlock in the find_vmap_area_exceed_addr_lock()
function:

============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
6.9.0-rc1-00060-ged3ccc57b108-dirty #6140 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
drgn/455 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff0000c00131d0 (&vn->busy.lock/1){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: find_vmap_area_exceed_addr_lock+0x64/0x124

but task is already holding lock:
ffff0000c0011878 (&vn->busy.lock/1){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: find_vmap_area_exceed_addr_lock+0x64/0x124

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock(&vn->busy.lock/1);
  lock(&vn->busy.lock/1);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

indeed it can happen if the find_vmap_area_exceed_addr_lock() gets called
concurrently because it tries to acquire two nodes locks.  It was done to
prevent removing a lowest VA found on a previous step.

To address this a lowest VA is found first without holding a node lock
where it resides.  As a last step we check if a VA still there because it
can go away, if removed, proceed with next lowest.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix comment typos, per Baoquan]
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240328140330.4747-1-urezki@gmail.com
Fixes: 53becf32 ("mm: vmalloc: support multiple nodes in vread_iter")
Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Tested-by: Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>
Reported-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>