From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+b7e8d799f0ab724876f9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
chandan.babu@oracle.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [xfs?] possible deadlock in xfs_ilock_data_map_shared
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:20:03 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ziwag2++iy62jHik@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240426163228.GP360919@frogsfrogsfrogs>
[cc linux-mm@kvack.org]
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 09:32:28AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:46:28AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > syzbot found the following issue on:
> >
> > HEAD commit: 977b1ef51866 Merge tag 'block-6.9-20240420' of git://git.k..
> > git tree: upstream
> > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=126497cd180000
> > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=d239903bd07761e5
> > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b7e8d799f0ab724876f9
> > compiler: Debian clang version 15.0.6, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.40
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
> >
> > Downloadable assets:
> > disk image: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/08d7b6e107aa/disk-977b1ef5.raw.xz
> > vmlinux: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/9c5e543ffdcf/vmlinux-977b1ef5.xz
> > kernel image: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/04a6d79d2f69/bzImage-977b1ef5.xz
> >
> > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> > Reported-by: syzbot+b7e8d799f0ab724876f9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> >
> > XFS (loop2): Ending clean mount
> > ======================================================
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 6.9.0-rc4-syzkaller-00266-g977b1ef51866 #0 Not tainted
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > syz-executor.2/7915 is trying to acquire lock:
> > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: might_alloc include/linux/sched/mm.h:312 [inline]
> > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: slab_pre_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:3746 [inline]
> > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3827 [inline]
> > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kmalloc_trace+0x47/0x360 mm/slub.c:3992
> >
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > ffff888056da8118 (&xfs_dir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}, at: xfs_ilock_data_map_shared+0x4f/0x70 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:114
> >
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> >
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >
> > -> #1 (&xfs_dir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}:
> > lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
> > down_write_nested+0x3d/0x50 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1695
> > xfs_reclaim_inode fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:945 [inline]
> > xfs_icwalk_process_inode fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1631 [inline]
> > xfs_icwalk_ag+0x120e/0x1ad0 fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1713
> > xfs_icwalk fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1762 [inline]
> > xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x257/0x360 fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1011
> > super_cache_scan+0x411/0x4b0 fs/super.c:227
> > do_shrink_slab+0x707/0x1160 mm/shrinker.c:435
> > shrink_slab+0x1092/0x14d0 mm/shrinker.c:662
> > shrink_one+0x453/0x880 mm/vmscan.c:4774
> > shrink_many mm/vmscan.c:4835 [inline]
> > lru_gen_shrink_node mm/vmscan.c:4935 [inline]
> > shrink_node+0x3b17/0x4310 mm/vmscan.c:5894
> > kswapd_shrink_node mm/vmscan.c:6704 [inline]
> > balance_pgdat mm/vmscan.c:6895 [inline]
> > kswapd+0x1882/0x38a0 mm/vmscan.c:7164
> > kthread+0x2f2/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:388
> > ret_from_fork+0x4d/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147
> > ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244
> >
> > -> #0 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> > check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]
> > check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]
> > validate_chain+0x18cb/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869
> > __lock_acquire+0x1346/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137
> > lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
> > __fs_reclaim_acquire mm/page_alloc.c:3698 [inline]
> > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x88/0x140 mm/page_alloc.c:3712
> > might_alloc include/linux/sched/mm.h:312 [inline]
> > slab_pre_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:3746 [inline]
> > slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3827 [inline]
> > kmalloc_trace+0x47/0x360 mm/slub.c:3992
> > kmalloc include/linux/slab.h:628 [inline]
> > add_stack_record_to_list mm/page_owner.c:177 [inline]
> > inc_stack_record_count mm/page_owner.c:219 [inline]
> > __set_page_owner+0x561/0x810 mm/page_owner.c:334
> > set_page_owner include/linux/page_owner.h:32 [inline]
> > post_alloc_hook+0x1ea/0x210 mm/page_alloc.c:1534
> > prep_new_page mm/page_alloc.c:1541 [inline]
> > get_page_from_freelist+0x3410/0x35b0 mm/page_alloc.c:3317
> > __alloc_pages+0x256/0x6c0 mm/page_alloc.c:4575
> > __alloc_pages_bulk+0x729/0xd40 mm/page_alloc.c:4523
> > alloc_pages_bulk_array include/linux/gfp.h:202 [inline]
> > xfs_buf_alloc_pages+0x1a7/0x860 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:398
> > xfs_buf_find_insert+0x19a/0x1540 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:650
> > xfs_buf_get_map+0x149c/0x1ae0 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:755
> > xfs_buf_read_map+0x111/0xa60 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:860
> > xfs_trans_read_buf_map+0x260/0xad0 fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c:289
> > xfs_da_read_buf+0x2b1/0x470 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c:2674
> > xfs_dir3_block_read+0x92/0x1a0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:145
> > xfs_dir2_block_lookup_int+0x109/0x7d0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:700
> > xfs_dir2_block_lookup+0x19a/0x630 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:650
> > xfs_dir_lookup+0x633/0xaf0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2.c:399
>
> Hm. We've taken an ILOCK in xfs_dir_lookup, and now we're reading a
> directory block. We don't have PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS set, nor do we pass
> GFP_NOFS when allocating the xfs_buf pages.
>
> Nothing in this code path sets PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS explicitly, nor does it
> create a xfs_trans_alloc_empty, which would set that. Prior to the
> removal of kmem_alloc, I think we were much more aggressive about
> GFP_NOFS usage.
This isn't an XFS bug. The XFS code is correct - the callsite in the
buffer cache is using GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOLOCKDEP explicitly to
avoid these sorts of false positives.
Please take a closer look at the stack trace - there's a second
memory allocation taking place there way below the XFS memory
allocation inside the page owner tracking code itself:
static void add_stack_record_to_list(struct stack_record *stack_record,
gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
unsigned long flags;
struct stack *stack;
/* Filter gfp_mask the same way stackdepot does, for consistency */
gfp_mask &= ~GFP_ZONEMASK;
gfp_mask &= (GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOWARN;
set_current_in_page_owner();
stack = kmalloc(sizeof(*stack), gfp_mask);
if (!stack) {
unset_current_in_page_owner();
return;
}
unset_current_in_page_owner();
.....
Look familiar? That exactly the same gfp mask filtering that the
stackdepot code was doing that caused this issue with KASAN:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/000000000000fbf10e06164f3695@google.com/
Which was fixed with this patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240418141133.22950-1-ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com/
Essentially, we're now playing whack-a-mole with internal kernel
debug code that doesn't honor __GFP_NOLOCKDEP....
MM-people: can you please do an audit of all the nested allocations
that occur inside the public high level allocation API and ensure
that they all obey __GFP_NOLOCKDEP so we don't have syzbot keep
tripping over them one at a time?
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-26 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-25 14:46 [syzbot] [xfs?] possible deadlock in xfs_ilock_data_map_shared syzbot
2024-04-26 16:32 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-04-26 21:20 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2024-04-26 23:17 ` Darrick J. Wong
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=Ziwag2++iy62jHik@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=chandan.babu@oracle.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com \
--cc=syzbot+b7e8d799f0ab724876f9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
--cc=syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.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.