On Wed 10-10-18 14:28:09, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 10-10-18 13:42:27, Johannes Thumshirn wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1] > > > > [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining > > > > patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the > > > > end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex > > > > protecting the loop device. > > > > > > > > I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop > > > > devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I > > > > can try running it. Review is welcome! > > > > > > Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-) > > > > Apart from that blktests has a loop category and I think it could also be > > worthwhile to add the C reproducer from syzkaller to blktests. > > Yeah, I did run loop tests now and they ran fine. I can try converting the > syzbot reproducers into something legible but it will take a while. So I took a stab at this. But I hit two issues: 1) For the reproducer triggering the lockdep warning, you need a 32-bit binary (so that it uses compat_ioctl). I don't think we want to introduce 32-bit devel environment dependency to blktests. With 64-bits, the problem is also there but someone noticed and silenced lockdep (with a reason that I consider is incorrect)... I think the test is still worth it though as I'll remove the lockdep-fooling code in my patches and thus new breakage will be noticed. 2) For the oops (use-after-free) issue I was not able to reproduce that in my test KVM in couple hours. The race window is rather narrow and syzbot with KASAN and everything hit it only 11 times. So I'm not sure how useful that test is. Any opinions? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
