Hello,
syzbot found the following crash on:
HEAD commit: f0df5c1b usb-fuzzer: main usb gadget fuzzer driver
git tree: https://github.com/google/kasan.git usb-fuzzer
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=166a89be600000
kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=5c6633fa4ed00be5
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=19df89b6a1c1aa59be2b
compiler: gcc (GCC) 9.0.0 20181231 (experimental)
syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=12558891600000
C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=136f7409600000
IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+19df89b6a1c1aa59be2b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.3.0-rc7+ #0 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor220/1722 is trying to acquire lock:
00000000ff068a1b (rio500_mutex){+.+.}, at: open_rio+0x16/0xe0
drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:65
but task is already holding lock:
00000000a02b2d74 (minor_rwsem){++++}, at: usb_open+0x23/0x270
drivers/usb/core/file.c:39
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (minor_rwsem){++++}:
down_write+0x92/0x150 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1500
usb_register_dev drivers/usb/core/file.c:187 [inline]
usb_register_dev+0x131/0x670 drivers/usb/core/file.c:156
probe_rio.cold+0x53/0x237 drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:474
usb_probe_interface+0x305/0x7a0 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:361
really_probe+0x281/0x6d0 drivers/base/dd.c:548
driver_probe_device+0x101/0x1b0 drivers/base/dd.c:721
__device_attach_driver+0x1c2/0x220 drivers/base/dd.c:828
bus_for_each_drv+0x162/0x1e0 drivers/base/bus.c:454
__device_attach+0x217/0x360 drivers/base/dd.c:894
bus_probe_device+0x1e4/0x290 drivers/base/bus.c:514
device_add+0xae6/0x16f0 drivers/base/core.c:2165
usb_set_configuration+0xdf6/0x1670 drivers/usb/core/message.c:2023
generic_probe+0x9d/0xd5 drivers/usb/core/generic.c:210
usb_probe_device+0x99/0x100 drivers/usb/core/driver.c:266
really_probe+0x281/0x6d0 drivers/base/dd.c:548
driver_probe_device+0x101/0x1b0 drivers/base/dd.c:721
__device_attach_driver+0x1c2/0x220 drivers/base/dd.c:828
bus_for_each_drv+0x162/0x1e0 drivers/base/bus.c:454
__device_attach+0x217/0x360 drivers/base/dd.c:894
bus_probe_device+0x1e4/0x290 drivers/base/bus.c:514
device_add+0xae6/0x16f0 drivers/base/core.c:2165
usb_new_device.cold+0x6a4/0xe79 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:2536
hub_port_connect drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5098 [inline]
hub_port_connect_change drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5213 [inline]
port_event drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5359 [inline]
hub_event+0x1b5c/0x3640 drivers/usb/core/hub.c:5441
process_one_work+0x92b/0x1530 kernel/workqueue.c:2269
worker_thread+0x96/0xe20 kernel/workqueue.c:2415
kthread+0x318/0x420 kernel/kthread.c:255
ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:352
-> #0 (rio500_mutex){+.+.}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2405 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2507 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2897 [inline]
__lock_acquire+0x1f7c/0x3b50 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3880
lock_acquire+0x127/0x320 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4412
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:930 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x158/0x1360 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1077
open_rio+0x16/0xe0 drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:65
usb_open+0x1df/0x270 drivers/usb/core/file.c:48
chrdev_open+0x219/0x5c0 fs/char_dev.c:414
do_dentry_open+0x494/0x1120 fs/open.c:797
do_last fs/namei.c:3416 [inline]
path_openat+0x1430/0x3f50 fs/namei.c:3533
do_filp_open+0x1a1/0x280 fs/namei.c:3563
do_sys_open+0x3c0/0x580 fs/open.c:1089
do_syscall_64+0xb7/0x580 arch/x86/entry/common.c:296
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(minor_rwsem);
lock(rio500_mutex);
lock(minor_rwsem);
lock(rio500_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by syz-executor220/1722:
#0: 00000000a02b2d74 (minor_rwsem){++++}, at: usb_open+0x23/0x270
drivers/usb/core/file.c:39
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 1722 Comm: syz-executor220 Not tainted 5.3.0-rc7+ #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS
Google 01/01/2011
Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
dump_stack+0xca/0x13e lib/dump_stack.c:113
check_noncircular+0x345/0x3e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1741
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2405 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2507 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2897 [inline]
__lock_acquire+0x1f7c/0x3b50 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3880
lock_acquire+0x127/0x320 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4412
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:930 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x158/0x1360 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1077
open_rio+0x16/0xe0 drivers/usb/misc/rio500.c:65
usb_open+0x1df/0x270 drivers/usb/core/file.c:48
chrdev_open+0x219/0x5c0 fs/char_dev.c:414
do_dentry_open+0x494/0x1120 fs/open.c:797
do_last fs/namei.c:3416 [inline]
path_openat+0x1430/0x3f50 fs/namei.c:3533
do_filp_open+0x1a1/0x280 fs/namei.c:3563
do_sys_open+0x3c0/0x580 fs/open.c:1089
do_syscall_64+0xb7/0x580 arch/x86/entry/common.c:296
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
RIP: 0033:0x401880
Code: 01 f0 ff ff 0f 83 80 0d 00 00 c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f
44 00 00 83 3d 0d 05 2d 00 00 75 14 b8 02 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff
ff 0f 83 54 0d 00 00 c3 48 83 ec 08 e8 ba 02 00 00
RSP: 002b:00007ffcfca5b718 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000002
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007ffcfca5bbd0 RCX: 0000000000401880
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI: 00007ffcfca5b730
RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 000000000000000f
R10: 0000000000000064 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000402a60
R13: 0000000000402af0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000
---
This bug is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
syzbot will keep track of this bug report. See:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.
syzbot can test patches for this bug, for details see:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#testing-patches
