On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 08:36:51PM +0800, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> [syz report]
> syz-executor279/5059 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff888079c100f8 (&HFS_I(tree->inode)->extents_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: hfs_extend_file+0xa2/0xb10 fs/hfs/extent.c:397
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff888079c10778 (&HFS_I(tree->inode)->extents_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: hfs_extend_file+0xa2/0xb10 fs/hfs/extent.c:397
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&HFS_I(tree->inode)->extents_lock);
> lock(&HFS_I(tree->inode)->extents_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
> [Analysis]
> hfs_extend_file()->
> hfs_ext_read_extent()->
> __hfs_ext_cache_extent()->
> __hfs_ext_write_extent()->
> hfs_bmap_reserve()->
> hfs_extend_file()->
>
> When an inode has both the HFS_FLG_EXT_DIRTY and HFS_FLG_EXT_NEW flags, it will
> enter the above loop and trigger a deadlock.
>
> [Fix]
> In hfs_ext_read_extent(), check if the above two flags exist simultaneously,
> and exit the subsequent process when the conditions are met.
Why is this the correct fix? Seems to me that returning -ENOENT here is
going to lead to an error being reported to the user when the user has
done nothing wrong?
> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+41a88b825a315aac2254@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@xxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/hfs/extent.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/hfs/extent.c b/fs/hfs/extent.c
> index 6d1878b99b30..1b02c7b6a10c 100644
> --- a/fs/hfs/extent.c
> +++ b/fs/hfs/extent.c
> @@ -197,6 +197,10 @@ static int hfs_ext_read_extent(struct inode *inode, u16 block)
> block < HFS_I(inode)->cached_start + HFS_I(inode)->cached_blocks)
> return 0;
>
> + if (HFS_I(inode)->flags & HFS_FLG_EXT_DIRTY &&
> + HFS_I(inode)->flags & HFS_FLG_EXT_NEW)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> res = hfs_find_init(HFS_SB(inode->i_sb)->ext_tree, &fd);
> if (!res) {
> res = __hfs_ext_cache_extent(&fd, inode, block);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
>
