5.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
commit e110f8911ddb93e6f55da14ccbbe705397b30d0b upstream.
When running delayed items we are holding a delayed node's mutex and then
we will attempt to modify a subvolume btree to insert/update/delete the
delayed items. However if have an error during the insertions for example,
btrfs_insert_delayed_items() may return with a path that has locked extent
buffers (a leaf at the very least), and then we attempt to release the
delayed node at __btrfs_run_delayed_items(), which requires taking the
delayed node's mutex, causing an ABBA type of deadlock. This was reported
by syzbot and the lockdep splat is the following:
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.5.0-rc7-syzkaller-00024-g93f5de5f648d #0 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor.2/13257 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88801835c0c0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x9a/0xaa0 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:256
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88802a5ab8e8 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x3c/0x2a0 fs/btrfs/locking.c:198
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}:
__lock_release kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5475 [inline]
lock_release+0x36f/0x9d0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5781
up_write+0x79/0x580 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1625
btrfs_tree_unlock_rw fs/btrfs/locking.h:189 [inline]
btrfs_unlock_up_safe+0x179/0x3b0 fs/btrfs/locking.c:239
search_leaf fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1986 [inline]
btrfs_search_slot+0x2511/0x2f80 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2230
btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x9c/0x180 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:4376
btrfs_insert_delayed_item fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:746 [inline]
btrfs_insert_delayed_items fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:824 [inline]
__btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_items+0xd24/0x2410 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1111
__btrfs_run_delayed_items+0x1db/0x430 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1153
flush_space+0x269/0xe70 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:723
btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x106/0x350 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:1078
process_one_work+0x92c/0x12c0 kernel/workqueue.c:2600
worker_thread+0xa63/0x1210 kernel/workqueue.c:2751
kthread+0x2b8/0x350 kernel/kthread.c:389
ret_from_fork+0x2e/0x60 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:145
ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:304
-> #0 (&delayed_node->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3142 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3261 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3876 [inline]
__lock_acquire+0x39ff/0x7f70 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5144
lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5761
__mutex_lock_common+0x1d8/0x2530 kernel/locking/mutex.c:603
__mutex_lock kernel/locking/mutex.c:747 [inline]
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 kernel/locking/mutex.c:799
__btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x9a/0xaa0 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:256
btrfs_release_delayed_node fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:281 [inline]
__btrfs_run_delayed_items+0x2b5/0x430 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1156
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x859/0x2ff0 fs/btrfs/transaction.c:2276
btrfs_sync_file+0xf56/0x1330 fs/btrfs/file.c:1988
vfs_fsync_range fs/sync.c:188 [inline]
vfs_fsync fs/sync.c:202 [inline]
do_fsync fs/sync.c:212 [inline]
__do_sys_fsync fs/sync.c:220 [inline]
__se_sys_fsync fs/sync.c:218 [inline]
__x64_sys_fsync+0x196/0x1e0 fs/sync.c:218
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x41/0xc0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-00);
lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
lock(btrfs-tree-00);
lock(&delayed_node->mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by syz-executor.2/13257:
#0: ffff88802c1ee370 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: spin_unlock include/linux/spinlock.h:391 [inline]
#0: ffff88802c1ee370 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0xb87/0xe00 fs/btrfs/transaction.c:287
#1: ffff88802c1ee398 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0xbb2/0xe00 fs/btrfs/transaction.c:288
#2: ffff88802a5ab8e8 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x3c/0x2a0 fs/btrfs/locking.c:198
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 13257 Comm: syz-executor.2 Not tainted 6.5.0-rc7-syzkaller-00024-g93f5de5f648d #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 07/26/2023
Call Trace:
<TASK>
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0x1e7/0x2d0 lib/dump_stack.c:106
check_noncircular+0x375/0x4a0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2195
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3142 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3261 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3876 [inline]
__lock_acquire+0x39ff/0x7f70 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5144
lock_acquire+0x1e3/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5761
__mutex_lock_common+0x1d8/0x2530 kernel/locking/mutex.c:603
__mutex_lock kernel/locking/mutex.c:747 [inline]
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 kernel/locking/mutex.c:799
__btrfs_release_delayed_node+0x9a/0xaa0 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:256
btrfs_release_delayed_node fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:281 [inline]
__btrfs_run_delayed_items+0x2b5/0x430 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1156
btrfs_commit_transaction+0x859/0x2ff0 fs/btrfs/transaction.c:2276
btrfs_sync_file+0xf56/0x1330 fs/btrfs/file.c:1988
vfs_fsync_range fs/sync.c:188 [inline]
vfs_fsync fs/sync.c:202 [inline]
do_fsync fs/sync.c:212 [inline]
__do_sys_fsync fs/sync.c:220 [inline]
__se_sys_fsync fs/sync.c:218 [inline]
__x64_sys_fsync+0x196/0x1e0 fs/sync.c:218
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x41/0xc0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
RIP: 0033:0x7f3ad047cae9
Code: 28 00 00 00 75 (...)
RSP: 002b:00007f3ad12510c8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000004a
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f3ad059bf80 RCX: 00007f3ad047cae9
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000005
RBP: 00007f3ad04c847a R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: 000000000000000b R14: 00007f3ad059bf80 R15: 00007ffe56af92f8
</TASK>
------------[ cut here ]------------
Fix this by releasing the path before releasing the delayed node in the
error path at __btrfs_run_delayed_items().
Reported-by: syzbot+a379155f07c134ea9879@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/000000000000abba27060403b5bd@xxxxxxxxxx/
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 4.14+
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
@@ -1173,20 +1173,33 @@ static int __btrfs_run_delayed_items(str
ret = __btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_items(trans, path,
curr_node);
if (ret) {
- btrfs_release_delayed_node(curr_node);
- curr_node = NULL;
btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
break;
}
prev_node = curr_node;
curr_node = btrfs_next_delayed_node(curr_node);
+ /*
+ * See the comment below about releasing path before releasing
+ * node. If the commit of delayed items was successful the path
+ * should always be released, but in case of an error, it may
+ * point to locked extent buffers (a leaf at the very least).
+ */
+ ASSERT(path->nodes[0] == NULL);
btrfs_release_delayed_node(prev_node);
}
+ /*
+ * Release the path to avoid a potential deadlock and lockdep splat when
+ * releasing the delayed node, as that requires taking the delayed node's
+ * mutex. If another task starts running delayed items before we take
+ * the mutex, it will first lock the mutex and then it may try to lock
+ * the same btree path (leaf).
+ */
+ btrfs_free_path(path);
+
if (curr_node)
btrfs_release_delayed_node(curr_node);
- btrfs_free_path(path);
trans->block_rsv = block_rsv;
return ret;
