Re: [PATCH next] btrfs: fix deadlock in btrfs_read_chunk_tree

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

在 2025/6/25 22:10, Hillf Danton 写道:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 20:19:06 +0930 Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> =E5=9C=A8 2025/6/25 09:26, Hillf Danton =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
>>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 06:00:09 +0930 Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>> =3DE5=3D9C=3DA8 2025/6/25 00:00, Edward Adam Davis =3DE5=3D86=3D99=3DE9=
>> =3D81=3D93:
>>>>> Remove the lock uuid_mutex outside of sget_fc() to avoid the deadlock
>>>>> reported by [1].
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> -> #1 (&type->s_umount_key#41/1){+.+.}-{4:4}:
>>>>>           lock_acquire+0x120/0x360 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5871
>>>>>           down_write_nested+0x9d/0x200 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1693
>>>>>           alloc_super+0x204/0x970 fs/super.c:345
>>> =20
>>> Given kzalloc [3], the syzbot report is false positive (a known lockdep
>>> issue) as nobody else should acquire s->s_umount lock.
>>> =20
>>> [3] https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.=
>> git/tree/fs/super.c?id=3D7aacdf6feed1#n319
>>
>> Not a false alert either.
>>
>> sget_fc() can return an existing super block, we can race between a=20
>> mount and an unmount on the same super block.
>>
>> In that case it's going to cause problem.
>>
>> This is already fixed in the v4 (and later v5) patchset:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1750724841.git.wqu@suse.com/
>>
> Can v5 survive the syzbot test?

Yes, I enabled lockdep during v5 tests.