From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To: fdmanana@kernel.org
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: release path before inode lookup during the ino lookup ioctl
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 09:12:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230828131237.GA875235@perftesting> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3433395cd3c3c880bf01392d07813d3677fd010e.1693045620.git.fdmanana@suse.com>
On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 11:28:20AM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
>
> During the ino lookup ioctl we can end up calling btrfs_iget() to get an
> inode reference while we are holding on a root's btree. If btrfs_iget()
> needs to lookup the inode from the root's btree, because it's not
> currently loaded in memory, then it will need to lock another or the
> same path in the same root btree. This may result in a deadlock and
> trigger the following lockdep splat:
>
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 6.5.0-rc7-syzkaller-00004-gf7757129e3de #0 Not tainted
> ------------------------------------------------------
> syz-executor277/5012 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff88802df41710 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x2f/0x220 fs/btrfs/locking.c:136
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff88802df418e8 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x2f/0x220 fs/btrfs/locking.c:136
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}:
> down_read_nested+0x49/0x2f0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1645
> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x2f/0x220 fs/btrfs/locking.c:136
> btrfs_search_slot+0x13a4/0x2f80 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2302
> btrfs_init_root_free_objectid+0x148/0x320 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:4955
> btrfs_init_fs_root fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1128 [inline]
> btrfs_get_root_ref+0x5ae/0xae0 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1338
> btrfs_get_fs_root fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:1390 [inline]
> open_ctree+0x29c8/0x3030 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c:3494
> btrfs_fill_super+0x1c7/0x2f0 fs/btrfs/super.c:1154
> btrfs_mount_root+0x7e0/0x910 fs/btrfs/super.c:1519
> legacy_get_tree+0xef/0x190 fs/fs_context.c:611
> vfs_get_tree+0x8c/0x270 fs/super.c:1519
> fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1112 [inline]
> vfs_kern_mount+0xbc/0x150 fs/namespace.c:1142
> btrfs_mount+0x39f/0xb50 fs/btrfs/super.c:1579
> legacy_get_tree+0xef/0x190 fs/fs_context.c:611
> vfs_get_tree+0x8c/0x270 fs/super.c:1519
> do_new_mount+0x28f/0xae0 fs/namespace.c:3335
> do_mount fs/namespace.c:3675 [inline]
> __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:3884 [inline]
> __se_sys_mount+0x2d9/0x3c0 fs/namespace.c:3861
> 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
>
> -> #0 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{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
> down_read_nested+0x49/0x2f0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1645
> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x2f/0x220 fs/btrfs/locking.c:136
> btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:142 [inline]
> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x292/0x3c0 fs/btrfs/locking.c:281
> btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1832 [inline]
> btrfs_search_slot+0x4ff/0x2f80 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2154
> btrfs_lookup_inode+0xdc/0x480 fs/btrfs/inode-item.c:412
> btrfs_read_locked_inode fs/btrfs/inode.c:3892 [inline]
> btrfs_iget_path+0x2d9/0x1520 fs/btrfs/inode.c:5716
> btrfs_search_path_in_tree_user fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:1961 [inline]
> btrfs_ioctl_ino_lookup_user+0x77a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2105
> btrfs_ioctl+0xb0b/0xd40 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4683
> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:870 [inline]
> __se_sys_ioctl+0xf8/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:856
> 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
> ---- ----
> rlock(btrfs-tree-00);
> lock(btrfs-tree-01);
> lock(btrfs-tree-00);
> rlock(btrfs-tree-01);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 1 lock held by syz-executor277/5012:
> #0: ffff88802df418e8 (btrfs-tree-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x2f/0x220 fs/btrfs/locking.c:136
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 1 PID: 5012 Comm: syz-executor277 Not tainted 6.5.0-rc7-syzkaller-00004-gf7757129e3de #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
> down_read_nested+0x49/0x2f0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1645
> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x2f/0x220 fs/btrfs/locking.c:136
> btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:142 [inline]
> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x292/0x3c0 fs/btrfs/locking.c:281
> btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1832 [inline]
> btrfs_search_slot+0x4ff/0x2f80 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2154
> btrfs_lookup_inode+0xdc/0x480 fs/btrfs/inode-item.c:412
> btrfs_read_locked_inode fs/btrfs/inode.c:3892 [inline]
> btrfs_iget_path+0x2d9/0x1520 fs/btrfs/inode.c:5716
> btrfs_search_path_in_tree_user fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:1961 [inline]
> btrfs_ioctl_ino_lookup_user+0x77a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:2105
> btrfs_ioctl+0xb0b/0xd40 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4683
> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:870 [inline]
> __se_sys_ioctl+0xf8/0x170 fs/ioctl.c:856
> 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: 0033:0x7f0bec94ea39
>
> Fix this simply by releasing the path before calling btrfs_iget() as at
> point we don't need the path anymore.
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+bf66ad948981797d2f1d@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/00000000000045fa140603c4a969@google.com/
> Fixes: 23d0b79dfaed ("btrfs: Add unprivileged version of ino_lookup ioctl")
> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Thanks,
Josef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-28 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-26 10:28 [PATCH] btrfs: release path before inode lookup during the ino lookup ioctl fdmanana
2023-08-28 13:12 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2023-09-04 21:41 ` David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230828131237.GA875235@perftesting \
--to=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=fdmanana@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.