Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: fix circular locking dependency in ocfs2_dio_end_io_write
Heming Zhao <[email protected]> Wed, 17 Jun 2026 10:41:52 +0800
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.ocfs2-devel,dev.linux.lists.syzbot,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <ajIIwKsnlN5yPawm@p15> |
On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 02:00:40PM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote: > > > On 6/15/26 3:32 PM, Heming Zhao wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 11:50:20AM +0000, syzbot wrote: > >> From: Aleksandr Nogikh <[email protected]> > >> > >> A circular locking dependency involves INODE_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE, > >> EXTENT_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE, and ORPHAN_DIR_SYSTEM_INODE. > >> > >> 1. ocfs2_mknod() acquires INODE_ALLOC then EXTENT_ALLOC. > >> 2. ocfs2_dio_end_io_write() acquires EXTENT_ALLOC for unwritten extents, > >> then ORPHAN_DIR via ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan() while still holding > >> EXTENT_ALLOC. > >> 3. ocfs2_wipe_inode() acquires ORPHAN_DIR then INODE_ALLOC via > >> ocfs2_remove_inode. > >> > >> Break the cycle in ocfs2_dio_end_io_write() by freeing the allocation > >> contexts (releasing EXTENT_ALLOC) before acquiring ORPHAN_DIR. > >> > >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> is trying to acquire lock: > >> ffff8881e78b33a0 > >> (&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[INODE_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE]){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: > >> ocfs2_evict_inode+0x1539/0x43b0 fs/ocfs2/inode.c:1299 > >> > >> but task is already holding lock: > >> ffff8881e78b4fa0 > >> (&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[ORPHAN_DIR_SYSTEM_INODE]){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: > >> ocfs2_evict_inode+0xe97/0x43b0 fs/ocfs2/inode.c:1299 > >> > >> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > >> > >> -> #2 (&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[ORPHAN_DIR_SYSTEM_INODE]){+.+.}-{4:4}: > >> inode_lock include/linux/fs.h:1029 [inline] > >> ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan+0x12e/0x7a0 fs/ocfs2/namei.c:2728 > >> ocfs2_dio_end_io+0xf9c/0x1370 fs/ocfs2/aops.c:2418 > >> dio_complete+0x25b/0x790 fs/direct-io.c:281 > >> > >> -> #1 (&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[EXTENT_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE]){+.+.}-{4:4}: > >> inode_lock include/linux/fs.h:1029 [inline] > >> ocfs2_reserve_suballoc_bits+0x16d/0x4840 fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:882 > >> ocfs2_reserve_new_metadata_blocks+0x415/0x9a0 > >> fs/ocfs2/suballoc.c:1078 > >> ocfs2_mknod+0x10f3/0x2260 fs/ocfs2/namei.c:351 > >> > >> -> #0 (&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[INODE_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE]){+.+.}-{4:4}: > >> __lock_acquire+0x15a5/0x2cf0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5237 > >> lock_acquire+0x106/0x350 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5868 > >> down_write+0x96/0x200 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1625 > >> inode_lock include/linux/fs.h:1029 [inline] > >> ocfs2_remove_inode fs/ocfs2/inode.c:733 [inline] > >> ocfs2_wipe_inode fs/ocfs2/inode.c:896 [inline] > >> ocfs2_delete_inode fs/ocfs2/inode.c:1157 [inline] > >> ocfs2_evict_inode+0x1539/0x43b0 fs/ocfs2/inode.c:1299 > >> > >> Chain exists of: > >> &ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[INODE_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE] --> > >> &ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[EXTENT_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE] --> > >> &ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[ORPHAN_DIR_SYSTEM_INODE] > >> > >> Possible unsafe locking scenario: > >> > >> CPU0 CPU1 > >> ---- ---- > >> lock(&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[ORPHAN_DIR_SYSTEM_INODE]); > >> lock(&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[EXTENT_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE]); > >> lock(&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[ORPHAN_DIR_SYSTEM_INODE]); > >> lock(&ocfs2_sysfile_lock_key[INODE_ALLOC_SYSTEM_INODE]); > >> > >> *** DEADLOCK *** > >> > > Better to describe the solution here. > > >> Fixes: d647c5b2fbf8 ("ocfs2: split transactions in dio completion to avoid credit exhaustion") > >> 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=b225d4dfce6219600c42 > >> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/ai_job?id=0b53ce1e-2972-4192-aa85-8097a702762c > >> Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Nogikh <[email protected]> > > > > LGTM. > > After d647c5b2fbf8, ocfs2_dio_end_io_write() spends a significant amount of time > > looping through the unwritten extent list before it finally acquires the > > ORPHAN_DIR lock. This gives other functions (such as ocfs2_wipe_inode() mentioned > > in this patch) a chance to preemptively grab the ORPHAN_DIR lock, thereby > > triggering the circular locking. > > What d647c5b2fbf8 actually did was widen the race window, turning a pre-existing, > > low-probability issue into an easily reproducible one. > > > > Ummm... before d647c5b2fbf8, ocfs2_del_inode_from_orphan() is called > before down_write(&ip_alloc_sem) and ocfs2_lock_allocators(). > So I think the 'Fixes' tag looks reasonable. > > Thanks, > Joseph Thanks for the info, your got the key. - Heming > > > Reviewed-by: Heming Zhao <[email protected]> > >> > >> --- > >> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/aops.c b/fs/ocfs2/aops.c > >> index 6ec198bda..4acdbb708 100644 > >> --- a/fs/ocfs2/aops.c > >> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/aops.c > >> @@ -2372,6 +2372,15 @@ static int ocfs2_dio_end_io_write(struct inode *inode, > >> unlock: > >> up_write(&oi->ip_alloc_sem); > >> > >> + if (data_ac) { > >> + ocfs2_free_alloc_context(data_ac); > >> + data_ac = NULL; > >> + } > >> + if (meta_ac) { > >> + ocfs2_free_alloc_context(meta_ac); > >> + meta_ac = NULL; > >> + } > >> + > >> /* everything looks good, let's start the cleanup */ > >> if (!ret && dwc->dw_orphaned) { > >> BUG_ON(dwc->dw_writer_pid != task_pid_nr(current)); > >> @@ -2383,10 +2392,6 @@ static int ocfs2_dio_end_io_write(struct inode *inode, > >> ocfs2_inode_unlock(inode, 1); > >> brelse(di_bh); > >> out: > >> - if (data_ac) > >> - ocfs2_free_alloc_context(data_ac); > >> - if (meta_ac) > >> - ocfs2_free_alloc_context(meta_ac); > >> ocfs2_run_deallocs(osb, &dealloc); > >> ocfs2_dio_free_write_ctx(inode, dwc); > >> > >> > >> > >> base-commit: e7ae89a0c97ce2b68b0983cd01eda67cf373517d > >> -- > >> See https://goo.gle/syzbot-ai-patches for information about AI-generated patches. > >> You can comment on the patch as usual, syzbot will try to address > >> the comments and send a new version of the patch if necessary. > >> syzbot engineers can be reached at [email protected]. > >> >