Re: [syzbot] [reiserfs?] possible deadlock in open_xa_dir
Roberto Sassu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.file-systems.reiserfs.general,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 5/5/2023 11:36 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:51 PM syzbot > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> syzbot has bisected this issue to: >> >> commit d82dcd9e21b77d338dc4875f3d4111f0db314a7c >> Author: Roberto Sassu <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri Mar 31 12:32:18 2023 +0000 >> >> reiserfs: Add security prefix to xattr name in reiserfs_security_write() >> >> bisection log: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=14403182280000 >> start commit: 3c4aa4434377 Merge tag 'ceph-for-6.4-rc1' of https://githu.. >> git tree: upstream >> final oops: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=16403182280000 >> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12403182280000 >> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=73a06f6ef2d5b492 >> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8fb64a61fdd96b50f3b8 >> syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=12442414280000 >> C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=176a7318280000 >> >> Reported-by: [email protected] >> Fixes: d82dcd9e21b7 ("reiserfs: Add security prefix to xattr name in reiserfs_security_write()") >> >> For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection > > I don't think Roberto's patch identified above is the actual root > cause of this problem as reiserfs_xattr_set_handle() is called in > reiserfs_security_write() both before and after the patch. However, > due to some bad logic in reiserfs_security_write() which Roberto > corrected, I'm thinking that it is possible this code is being > exercised for the first time and syzbot is starting to trigger a > locking issue in the reiserfs code ... ? + Jan, Jeff (which basically restructured the lock) + Petr, Ingo, Will I involve the lockdep experts, to get a bit of help on this. First of all, the lockdep warning is trivial to reproduce: # dd if=/dev/zero of=reiserfs.img bs=1M count=100 # losetup -f --show reiserfs.img /dev/loop0 # mkfs.reiserfs /dev/loop0 # mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/ # touch file0 In the testing system, Smack is the major LSM. Ok, so the warning here is clear: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=12403182280000 However, I was looking if that can really happen. From this: [ 77.746561][ T5418] -> #1 (&sbi->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 77.753772][ T5418] lock_acquire+0x23e/0x630 [ 77.758792][ T5418] __mutex_lock_common+0x1d8/0x2530 [ 77.764504][ T5418] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 [ 77.769868][ T5418] reiserfs_write_lock+0x70/0xc0 [ 77.775321][ T5418] reiserfs_mkdir+0x321/0x870 I see that the lock is taken in reiserfs_write_lock(), while lockdep says: [ 77.710227][ T5418] but task is already holding lock: [ 77.717587][ T5418] ffff88807568d090 (&sbi->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: reiserfs_write_lock_nested+0x4a/0xb0 which is in a different place, I believe here: int reiserfs_paste_into_item(struct reiserfs_transaction_handle *th, /* Path to the pasted item. */ [...] depth = reiserfs_write_unlock_nested(sb); dquot_free_space_nodirty(inode, pasted_size); reiserfs_write_lock_nested(sb, depth); return retval; } This is called by reiserfs_add_entry(), which is called by reiserfs_create() (it is in the lockdep trace). After returning to reiserfs_create(), d_instantiate_new() is called. I don't know exactly, I take the part that the lock is held. But if it is held, how d_instantiate_new() can be executed in another task? static int reiserfs_create(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode, bool excl) { [...] reiserfs_write_lock(dir->i_sb); retval = journal_begin(&th, dir->i_sb, jbegin_count); [...] d_instantiate_new(dentry, inode); retval = journal_end(&th); out_failed: reiserfs_write_unlock(dir->i_sb); If the lock is held, the scenario lockdep describes cannot happen. Any thoughts? Thanks Roberto