Re: [syzbot] [reiserfs?] possible deadlock in open_xa_dir

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/31/2023 11:49 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote:
On 5/5/2023 11:36 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:51 PM syzbot
<syzbot+8fb64a61fdd96b50f3b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

syzbot has bisected this issue to:

commit d82dcd9e21b77d338dc4875f3d4111f0db314a7c
Author: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
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: syzbot+8fb64a61fdd96b50f3b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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)

Actually adding Jan and Jeff.

Roberto

+ 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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux File System Development]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Ext4 Filesystem]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux