All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+9543479984ae9e576000@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
	adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
	tytso@mit.edu, Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in ext4_bmap
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 23:25:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YwB+cXMCS/uk61PR@sol.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cad2edc1-57dd-1d79-0f2f-966e6fb31d5b@huawei.com>

On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 10:46:16AM +0800, 'Jason Yan' via syzkaller-bugs wrote:
> The inode_lock(inode) in vfs_fileattr_set() is a regular file inode and
> inode_lock_shared(inode) in ext4_bmap() is a journal inode.
> 
> So this might be a false positive deadlock warning.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jason
> 
> On 2022/8/8 15:33, syzbot wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > syzbot found the following issue on:
> > 
> > HEAD commit:    ca688bff68bc Add linux-next specific files for 20220808
> > git tree:       linux-next
> > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=177eb001080000
> > kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=4c20e006003cdecb
> > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9543479984ae9e576000
> > compiler:       gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2
> > 
> > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> > 
> > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > Reported-by: syzbot+9543479984ae9e576000@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > 
> > ======================================================
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 5.19.0-next-20220808-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > syz-executor.3/15950 is trying to acquire lock:
> > ffff88801b348400 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){++++}-{3:3}, at: inode_lock_shared include/linux/fs.h:771 [inline]
> > ffff88801b348400 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){++++}-{3:3}, at: ext4_bmap+0x4e/0x460 fs/ext4/inode.c:3157
> > 
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > ffff88814bede3f8 (&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: jbd2_journal_flush+0x487/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2472
> > 
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > 
> > 
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > 
> > -> #1 (&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> >         __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:603 [inline]
> >         mutex_lock_io_nested+0x13f/0x1190 kernel/locking/mutex.c:833
> >         __jbd2_log_wait_for_space+0x234/0x460 fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c:110
> >         add_transaction_credits+0xa2d/0xb70 fs/jbd2/transaction.c:298
> >         start_this_handle+0x3ae/0x14a0 fs/jbd2/transaction.c:422
> >         jbd2__journal_start+0x38c/0x910 fs/jbd2/transaction.c:520
> >         __ext4_journal_start_sb+0x3a3/0x490 fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.c:105
> >         __ext4_journal_start fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h:326 [inline]
> >         ext4_dirty_inode+0x9d/0x110 fs/ext4/inode.c:5963
> >         __mark_inode_dirty+0x48b/0x1040 fs/fs-writeback.c:2381
> >         mark_inode_dirty include/linux/fs.h:2467 [inline]
> >         generic_write_end+0x350/0x440 fs/buffer.c:2199
> >         ext4_da_write_end+0x16e/0x9a0 fs/ext4/inode.c:3089
> >         generic_perform_write+0x306/0x560 mm/filemap.c:3749
> >         ext4_buffered_write_iter+0x15b/0x460 fs/ext4/file.c:270
> >         ext4_file_write_iter+0x44a/0x1660 fs/ext4/file.c:679
> >         call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2192 [inline]
> >         do_iter_readv_writev+0x20b/0x3b0 fs/read_write.c:729
> >         do_iter_write+0x182/0x700 fs/read_write.c:855
> >         vfs_iter_write+0x70/0xa0 fs/read_write.c:896
> >         iter_file_splice_write+0x741/0xc90 fs/splice.c:686
> >         do_splice_from fs/splice.c:764 [inline]
> >         direct_splice_actor+0x110/0x180 fs/splice.c:931
> >         splice_direct_to_actor+0x331/0x8a0 fs/splice.c:886
> >         do_splice_direct+0x1a7/0x270 fs/splice.c:974
> >         do_sendfile+0xb19/0x1270 fs/read_write.c:1249
> >         __do_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1311 [inline]
> >         __se_sys_sendfile64 fs/read_write.c:1303 [inline]
> >         __x64_sys_sendfile64+0x149/0x210 fs/read_write.c:1303
> >         do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> >         do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> >         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> > 
> > -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){++++}-{3:3}:
> >         check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3095 [inline]
> >         check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3214 [inline]
> >         validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3829 [inline]
> >         __lock_acquire+0x2a43/0x56d0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5053
> >         lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5666 [inline]
> >         lock_acquire+0x1ab/0x570 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5631
> >         down_read+0x98/0x450 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1499
> >         inode_lock_shared include/linux/fs.h:771 [inline]
> >         ext4_bmap+0x4e/0x460 fs/ext4/inode.c:3157
> >         bmap+0xaa/0x120 fs/inode.c:1799
> >         jbd2_journal_bmap+0xa8/0x180 fs/jbd2/journal.c:971
> >         __jbd2_journal_erase fs/jbd2/journal.c:1784 [inline]
> >         jbd2_journal_flush+0x84f/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2490
> >         ext4_ioctl_checkpoint fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1082 [inline]
> >         __ext4_ioctl+0x28fd/0x4ab0 fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1586
> >         vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
> >         __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:870 [inline]
> >         __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:856 [inline]
> >         __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:856
> >         do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> >         do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 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(&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex);
> >                                 lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8);
> >                                 lock(&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex);
> >    lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8);
> > 
> >   *** DEADLOCK ***
> > 
> > 2 locks held by syz-executor.3/15950:
> >   #0: ffff88814bede170 (&journal->j_barrier){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: jbd2_journal_lock_updates+0x15e/0x310 fs/jbd2/transaction.c:904
> >   #1: ffff88814bede3f8 (&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: jbd2_journal_flush+0x487/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2472
> > 
> > stack backtrace:
> > CPU: 1 PID: 15950 Comm: syz-executor.3 Not tainted 5.19.0-next-20220808-syzkaller #0
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 07/22/2022
> > Call Trace:
> >   <TASK>
> >   __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
> >   dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106
> >   check_noncircular+0x25f/0x2e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2175
> >   check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3095 [inline]
> >   check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3214 [inline]
> >   validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3829 [inline]
> >   __lock_acquire+0x2a43/0x56d0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5053
> >   lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5666 [inline]
> >   lock_acquire+0x1ab/0x570 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5631
> >   down_read+0x98/0x450 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1499
> >   inode_lock_shared include/linux/fs.h:771 [inline]
> >   ext4_bmap+0x4e/0x460 fs/ext4/inode.c:3157
> >   bmap+0xaa/0x120 fs/inode.c:1799
> >   jbd2_journal_bmap+0xa8/0x180 fs/jbd2/journal.c:971
> >   __jbd2_journal_erase fs/jbd2/journal.c:1784 [inline]
> >   jbd2_journal_flush+0x84f/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2490
> >   ext4_ioctl_checkpoint fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1082 [inline]
> >   __ext4_ioctl+0x28fd/0x4ab0 fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1586
> >   vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
> >   __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:870 [inline]
> >   __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:856 [inline]
> >   __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:856
> >   do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> >   do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> >   entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> > RIP: 0033:0x7feb4e689279
> > Code: ff ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 40 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 b8 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> > RSP: 002b:00007feb4f798168 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007feb4e79bf80 RCX: 00007feb4e689279
> > RDX: 0000000020000000 RSI: 000000004004662b RDI: 0000000000000005
> > RBP: 00007feb4e6e3189 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000
> > R13: 00007ffc38bb538f R14: 00007feb4f798300 R15: 0000000000022000
> >   </TASK>
> > 
> > 

I got this report while running syzkaller too.  It's very annoying because
anyone running syzkaller will probably get this if the filesystem is ext4.

ext4_bmap() didn't use to take the inode lock.  It started in this very recent
commit:

commit 51ae846cff568c8c29921b1b28eb2dfbcd4ac12d
Author: Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri Jun 17 09:39:35 2022 +0800

    ext4: fix warning in ext4_iomap_begin as race between bmap and write

Ye, any thoughts on what to do about this?

- Eric

  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-20  6:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-08  7:33 [syzbot] possible deadlock in ext4_bmap syzbot
2022-08-08 19:02 ` syzbot
2022-08-12  2:46 ` Jason Yan
2022-08-20  6:25   ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2023-04-30 23:28 ` Theodore Ts'o
     [not found] <20220809111035.2393-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2022-08-09 20:01 ` syzbot

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=YwB+cXMCS/uk61PR@sol.localdomain \
    --to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=syzbot+9543479984ae9e576000@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
    --cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=yanaijie@huawei.com \
    --cc=yebin10@huawei.com \
    /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.