[syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[syzbot]

Hello,

syzbot found the following issue on:

HEAD commit:    508fed679541 Merge tag 'ras_core_for_v7.1_rc1' of git://gi..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1481bb16580000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=c7349847759051f
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=98547b0428b6a6a3467c
compiler:       gcc (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.44
syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=1281bb16580000
C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=107938ce580000

Downloadable assets:
disk image: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/36836f0baa65/disk-508fed67.raw.xz
vmlinux: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/ab35bf742ab5/vmlinux-508fed67.xz
kernel image: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/5fbf86a0b4d3/bzImage-508fed67.xz
mounted in repro: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/d2ddc5d747a0/mount_4.gz

IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

BUG: memory leak
unreferenced object 0xffff88811cabc840 (size 96):
  comm "syz.0.18", pid 6071, jiffies 4294943951
  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
    00 f0 54 15 81 88 ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ..T.............
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 00 7f 00 00 00 00 00  ................
  backtrace (crc 3e2dadb7):
    kmemleak_alloc_recursive include/linux/kmemleak.h:44 [inline]
    slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:4543 [inline]
    slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:4866 [inline]
    __do_kmalloc_node mm/slub.c:5259 [inline]
    __kmalloc_noprof+0x3b7/0x550 mm/slub.c:5272
    kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:954 [inline]
    kzalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:1188 [inline]
    __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
    hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
    hfsplus_btree_open+0x2fa/0x6d0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
    hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548
    get_tree_bdev_flags+0x1c0/0x290 fs/super.c:1694
    vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x120 fs/super.c:1754
    fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1193 [inline]
    do_new_mount_fc fs/namespace.c:3763 [inline]
    do_new_mount fs/namespace.c:3839 [inline]
    path_mount+0x5a9/0x1360 fs/namespace.c:4159
    do_mount fs/namespace.c:4172 [inline]
    __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4361 [inline]
    __se_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4338 [inline]
    __x64_sys_mount+0x1a3/0x1e0 fs/namespace.c:4338
    do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
    do_syscall_64+0xee/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

BUG: memory leak
unreferenced object 0xffff88812c724d80 (size 96):
  comm "syz.0.19", pid 6082, jiffies 4294943963
  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
    00 90 e5 13 81 88 ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 00 7f 00 00 00 00 00  ................
  backtrace (crc 289d56ee):
    kmemleak_alloc_recursive include/linux/kmemleak.h:44 [inline]
    slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:4543 [inline]
    slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:4866 [inline]
    __do_kmalloc_node mm/slub.c:5259 [inline]
    __kmalloc_noprof+0x3b7/0x550 mm/slub.c:5272
    kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:954 [inline]
    kzalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:1188 [inline]
    __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
    hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
    hfsplus_btree_open+0x2fa/0x6d0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
    hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548
    get_tree_bdev_flags+0x1c0/0x290 fs/super.c:1694
    vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x120 fs/super.c:1754
    fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1193 [inline]
    do_new_mount_fc fs/namespace.c:3763 [inline]
    do_new_mount fs/namespace.c:3839 [inline]
    path_mount+0x5a9/0x1360 fs/namespace.c:4159
    do_mount fs/namespace.c:4172 [inline]
    __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4361 [inline]
    __se_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4338 [inline]
    __x64_sys_mount+0x1a3/0x1e0 fs/namespace.c:4338
    do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
    do_syscall_64+0xee/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

connection error: failed to recv *flatrpc.ExecutorMessageRawT: EOF


---
This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@googlegroups.com.

syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.

If the report is already addressed, let syzbot know by replying with:
#syz fix: exact-commit-title

If you want syzbot to run the reproducer, reply with:
#syz test: git://repo/address.git branch-or-commit-hash
If you attach or paste a git patch, syzbot will apply it before testing.

If you want to overwrite report's subsystems, reply with:
#syz set subsystems: new-subsystem
(See the list of subsystem names on the web dashboard)

If the report is a duplicate of another one, reply with:
#syz dup: exact-subject-of-another-report

If you want to undo deduplication, reply with:
#syz undup

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[Edward Adam Davis]

#syz test

diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/btree.c b/fs/hfsplus/btree.c
index 394542a47e60..926e4b40a065 100644
--- a/fs/hfsplus/btree.c
+++ b/fs/hfsplus/btree.c
@@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ struct hfs_btree *hfs_btree_open(struct super_block *sb, u32 id)
 	struct hfs_btree *tree;
 	struct hfs_btree_header_rec *head;
 	struct address_space *mapping;
-	struct hfs_bnode *node;
+	struct hfs_bnode *node = NULL;
 	struct inode *inode;
 	struct page *page;
 	unsigned int size;
@@ -401,6 +401,8 @@ struct hfs_btree *hfs_btree_open(struct super_block *sb, u32 id)
 	put_page(page);
  free_inode:
 	tree->inode->i_mapping->a_ops = &hfsplus_aops;
+	if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(node))
+		hfs_bnode_put(node);
 	iput(tree->inode);
  free_tree:
 	kfree(tree);

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[syzbot]

Hello,

syzbot has tested the proposed patch but the reproducer is still triggering an issue:
memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

BUG: memory leak
unreferenced object 0xffff88811d782480 (size 96):
  comm "syz.0.17", pid 6738, jiffies 4294945815
  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
    00 a0 6b 13 81 88 ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ..k.............
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 00 7f 00 00 00 00 00  ................
  backtrace (crc e40892e2):
    kmemleak_alloc_recursive include/linux/kmemleak.h:44 [inline]
    slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:4574 [inline]
    slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:4898 [inline]
    __do_kmalloc_node mm/slub.c:5294 [inline]
    __kmalloc_noprof+0x3b7/0x550 mm/slub.c:5307
    kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:954 [inline]
    kzalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:1188 [inline]
    __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
    hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
    hfsplus_btree_open+0x2e1/0x5a0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
    hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548
    get_tree_bdev_flags+0x1c0/0x290 fs/super.c:1694
    vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x120 fs/super.c:1754
    fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1193 [inline]
    do_new_mount_fc fs/namespace.c:3758 [inline]
    do_new_mount fs/namespace.c:3834 [inline]
    path_mount+0x5a9/0x1370 fs/namespace.c:4154
    do_mount fs/namespace.c:4167 [inline]
    __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4383 [inline]
    __se_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4360 [inline]
    __x64_sys_mount+0x1a3/0x1e0 fs/namespace.c:4360
    do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
    do_syscall_64+0xee/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

BUG: memory leak
unreferenced object 0xffff88811d780780 (size 96):
  comm "syz.0.18", pid 6747, jiffies 4294945821
  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
    00 80 31 14 81 88 ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ..1.............
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 00 7f 00 00 00 00 00  ................
  backtrace (crc daa1adcb):
    kmemleak_alloc_recursive include/linux/kmemleak.h:44 [inline]
    slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:4574 [inline]
    slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:4898 [inline]
    __do_kmalloc_node mm/slub.c:5294 [inline]
    __kmalloc_noprof+0x3b7/0x550 mm/slub.c:5307
    kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:954 [inline]
    kzalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:1188 [inline]
    __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
    hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
    hfsplus_btree_open+0x2e1/0x5a0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
    hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548
    get_tree_bdev_flags+0x1c0/0x290 fs/super.c:1694
    vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x120 fs/super.c:1754
    fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1193 [inline]
    do_new_mount_fc fs/namespace.c:3758 [inline]
    do_new_mount fs/namespace.c:3834 [inline]
    path_mount+0x5a9/0x1370 fs/namespace.c:4154
    do_mount fs/namespace.c:4167 [inline]
    __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4383 [inline]
    __se_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4360 [inline]
    __x64_sys_mount+0x1a3/0x1e0 fs/namespace.c:4360
    do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
    do_syscall_64+0xee/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

BUG: memory leak
unreferenced object 0xffff888113764300 (size 96):
  comm "syz.0.19", pid 6759, jiffies 4294945830
  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
    00 f0 31 14 81 88 ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ..1.............
    00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 00 7f 00 00 00 00 00  ................
  backtrace (crc 1420922e):
    kmemleak_alloc_recursive include/linux/kmemleak.h:44 [inline]
    slab_post_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:4574 [inline]
    slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:4898 [inline]
    __do_kmalloc_node mm/slub.c:5294 [inline]
    __kmalloc_noprof+0x3b7/0x550 mm/slub.c:5307
    kmalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:954 [inline]
    kzalloc_noprof include/linux/slab.h:1188 [inline]
    __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
    hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
    hfsplus_btree_open+0x2e1/0x5a0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
    hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548
    get_tree_bdev_flags+0x1c0/0x290 fs/super.c:1694
    vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x120 fs/super.c:1754
    fc_mount fs/namespace.c:1193 [inline]
    do_new_mount_fc fs/namespace.c:3758 [inline]
    do_new_mount fs/namespace.c:3834 [inline]
    path_mount+0x5a9/0x1370 fs/namespace.c:4154
    do_mount fs/namespace.c:4167 [inline]
    __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4383 [inline]
    __se_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:4360 [inline]
    __x64_sys_mount+0x1a3/0x1e0 fs/namespace.c:4360
    do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:63 [inline]
    do_syscall_64+0xee/0xf80 arch/x86/entry/syscall_64.c:94
    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f

connection error: failed to recv *flatrpc.ExecutorMessageRawT: EOF


Tested on:

commit:         43cfbdda Merge tag 'for-linus-iommufd' of git://git.ke..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=116024ce580000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=208b81ceb4623b6b
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=98547b0428b6a6a3467c
compiler:       gcc (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.44
patch:          https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/patch.diff?x=1077c4ce580000

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[Edward Adam Davis]

#syz test

diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
index f8b5a8ae58ff..05287716afd8 100644
--- a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
+++ b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
@@ -604,7 +604,10 @@ struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_find(struct hfs_btree *tree, u32 num)
 
 node_error:
 	set_bit(HFS_BNODE_ERROR, &node->flags);
-	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
+	if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {
+		hfs_bnode_free(node);
+		return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
+	}
 	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
 	hfs_bnode_put(node);
 	return ERR_PTR(-EIO);

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[syzbot]

Hello,

syzbot has tested the proposed patch and the reproducer did not trigger any issue:

Reported-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Tested-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

Tested on:

commit:         43cfbdda Merge tag 'for-linus-iommufd' of git://git.ke..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=15d441ba580000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=208b81ceb4623b6b
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=98547b0428b6a6a3467c
compiler:       gcc (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.44
patch:          https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/patch.diff?x=173fc4ce580000

Note: testing is done by a robot and is best-effort only.

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[Edward Adam Davis]

#syz test

diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
index f8b5a8ae58ff..cde9f6fbedd7 100644
--- a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
+++ b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
@@ -604,6 +604,13 @@ struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_find(struct hfs_btree *tree, u32 num)
 
 node_error:
 	set_bit(HFS_BNODE_ERROR, &node->flags);
+	if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {
+		if (num == HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
+			hfs_bnode_unhash(node);
+			hfs_bnode_free(node);
+			return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
+		}
+	}
 	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
 	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
 	hfs_bnode_put(node);

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[syzbot]

Hello,

syzbot has tested the proposed patch and the reproducer did not trigger any issue:

Reported-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Tested-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

Tested on:

commit:         43cfbdda Merge tag 'for-linus-iommufd' of git://git.ke..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=144f58ce580000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=208b81ceb4623b6b
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=98547b0428b6a6a3467c
compiler:       gcc (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.44
patch:          https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/patch.diff?x=15d81906580000

Note: testing is done by a robot and is best-effort only.

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[Edward Adam Davis]

#syz test

diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
index f8b5a8ae58ff..5a3e22006b76 100644
--- a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
+++ b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
@@ -598,12 +598,23 @@ struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_find(struct hfs_btree *tree, u32 num)
 		if (key_size >= entry_size || key_size & 1)
 			goto node_error;
 	}
-	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
-	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
+		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
+		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	}
 	return node;
 
 node_error:
 	set_bit(HFS_BNODE_ERROR, &node->flags);
+	if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {
+		if (num == HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
+			spin_lock(&tree->hash_lock);
+			hfs_bnode_unhash(node);
+			hfs_bnode_free(node);
+			spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock);
+			return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
+		}
+	}
 	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
 	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
 	hfs_bnode_put(node);
diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/btree.c b/fs/hfsplus/btree.c
index 394542a47e60..27ec484c3822 100644
--- a/fs/hfsplus/btree.c
+++ b/fs/hfsplus/btree.c
@@ -392,7 +392,14 @@ struct hfs_btree *hfs_btree_open(struct super_block *sb, u32 id)
 		sb->s_flags |= SB_RDONLY;
 	}
 
-	hfs_bnode_put(node);
+	if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {
+		spin_lock(&tree->hash_lock);
+		hfs_bnode_unhash(node);
+		hfs_bnode_free(node);
+		spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock);
+	}
+	else
+		hfs_bnode_put(node);
 
 	return tree;
 

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[syzbot]

Hello,

syzbot has tested the proposed patch and the reproducer did not trigger any issue:

Reported-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Tested-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

Tested on:

commit:         43cfbdda Merge tag 'for-linus-iommufd' of git://git.ke..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=154682d2580000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=208b81ceb4623b6b
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=98547b0428b6a6a3467c
compiler:       gcc (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.44
patch:          https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/patch.diff?x=14441906580000

Note: testing is done by a robot and is best-effort only.

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[Edward Adam Davis]

#syz test

diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
index f8b5a8ae58ff..65902104882a 100644
--- a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
+++ b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
@@ -598,14 +598,18 @@ struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_find(struct hfs_btree *tree, u32 num)
 		if (key_size >= entry_size || key_size & 1)
 			goto node_error;
 	}
-	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
-	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
+		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
+		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	}
 	return node;
 
 node_error:
 	set_bit(HFS_BNODE_ERROR, &node->flags);
-	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
-	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
+		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
+		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	}
 	hfs_bnode_put(node);
 	return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
 }
@@ -694,6 +698,10 @@ void hfs_bnode_put(struct hfs_bnode *node)
 			hfs_bnode_free(node);
 			return;
 		}
+		if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {
+			hfs_bnode_unhash(node);
+			hfs_bnode_free(node);
+		}
 		spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock);
 	}
 }

Re: [syzbot] [hfs?] memory leak in __hfs_bnode_create

[syzbot]

Hello,

syzbot has tested the proposed patch and the reproducer did not trigger any issue:

Reported-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Tested-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com

Tested on:

commit:         43cfbdda Merge tag 'for-linus-iommufd' of git://git.ke..
git tree:       upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=15df58ce580000
kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=208b81ceb4623b6b
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=98547b0428b6a6a3467c
compiler:       gcc (Debian 14.2.0-19) 14.2.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.44
patch:          https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/patch.diff?x=10d49a6a580000

Note: testing is done by a robot and is best-effort only.

[PATCH] hfsplus: Supports freeing newly created tree head

[Edward Adam Davis]

hfs_bnode_put() does not support deallocating a newly created btree
head node; therefore, regardless of whether hfsplus_bnode_find() succeeds
or fails, it cannot effectively reclaim the memory allocated for a newly
created head node.

When finding a head node, if the node is a newly created one, we can use
hfs_bnode_free() to reclaim its memory.

[1]
BUG: memory leak
unreferenced object 0xffff88811cabc840 (size 96):
  backtrace (crc 3e2dadb7):
    __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
    hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
    hfsplus_btree_open+0x2fa/0x6d0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
    hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548

Fixes: 8ad2c6a36ac4 ("hfsplus: validate b-tree node 0 bitmap at mount time")
Reported-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=98547b0428b6a6a3467c
Tested-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@qq.com>
---
 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
index f8b5a8ae58ff..65902104882a 100644
--- a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
+++ b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
@@ -598,14 +598,18 @@ struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_find(struct hfs_btree *tree, u32 num)
 		if (key_size >= entry_size || key_size & 1)
 			goto node_error;
 	}
-	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
-	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
+		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
+		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	}
 	return node;
 
 node_error:
 	set_bit(HFS_BNODE_ERROR, &node->flags);
-	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
-	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
+		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
+		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	}
 	hfs_bnode_put(node);
 	return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
 }
@@ -694,6 +698,10 @@ void hfs_bnode_put(struct hfs_bnode *node)
 			hfs_bnode_free(node);
 			return;
 		}
+		if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {
+			hfs_bnode_unhash(node);
+			hfs_bnode_free(node);
+		}
 		spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock);
 	}
 }
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH] hfsplus: Supports freeing newly created tree head

[Viacheslav Dubeyko]

On Fri, 2026-04-17 at 14:58 +0800, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> hfs_bnode_put() does not support deallocating a newly created btree
> head node; therefore, regardless of whether hfsplus_bnode_find() succeeds
> or fails, it cannot effectively reclaim the memory allocated for a newly
> created head node.
> 
> When finding a head node, if the node is a newly created one, we can use
> hfs_bnode_free() to reclaim its memory.
> 
> [1]
> BUG: memory leak
> unreferenced object 0xffff88811cabc840 (size 96):
>   backtrace (crc 3e2dadb7):
>     __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
>     hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
>     hfsplus_btree_open+0x2fa/0x6d0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
>     hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548

I need slightly more detailed and clear explanation how the issue has been
happened and why we need to fix it in a such way. Currently, I don't have the
complete picture how this happened. I am sure that you have the complete
picture. :) Could you please share what you have in your mind? :) Don't hide the
wisdom. ;)

Thanks,
Slava.

> 
> Fixes: 8ad2c6a36ac4 ("hfsplus: validate b-tree node 0 bitmap at mount time")
> Reported-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=98547b0428b6a6a3467c
> Tested-by: syzbot+98547b0428b6a6a3467c@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@qq.com>
> ---
>  fs/hfsplus/bnode.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
> index f8b5a8ae58ff..65902104882a 100644
> --- a/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
> +++ b/fs/hfsplus/bnode.c
> @@ -598,14 +598,18 @@ struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_find(struct hfs_btree *tree, u32 num)
>  		if (key_size >= entry_size || key_size & 1)
>  			goto node_error;
>  	}
> -	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
> -	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
> +	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
> +		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
> +		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
> +	}
>  	return node;
>  
>  node_error:
>  	set_bit(HFS_BNODE_ERROR, &node->flags);
> -	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
> -	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
> +	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
> +		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
> +		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
> +	}
>  	hfs_bnode_put(node);
>  	return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
>  }
> @@ -694,6 +698,10 @@ void hfs_bnode_put(struct hfs_bnode *node)
>  			hfs_bnode_free(node);
>  			return;
>  		}
> +		if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {
> +			hfs_bnode_unhash(node);
> +			hfs_bnode_free(node);
> +		}
>  		spin_unlock(&tree->hash_lock);
>  	}
>  }

[PATCH] hfsplus: Supports freeing newly created tree head

[Edward Adam Davis]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:03:17 -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > hfs_bnode_put() does not support deallocating a newly created btree
> > head node; therefore, regardless of whether hfsplus_bnode_find() succeeds
> > or fails, it cannot effectively reclaim the memory allocated for a newly
> > created head node.
> > 
> > When finding a head node, if the node is a newly created one, we can use
> > hfs_bnode_free() to reclaim its memory.
> > 
> > [1]
> > BUG: memory leak
> > unreferenced object 0xffff88811cabc840 (size 96):
> >   backtrace (crc 3e2dadb7):
> >     __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
> >     hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
> >     hfsplus_btree_open+0x2fa/0x6d0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
> >     hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548
> 
> I need slightly more detailed and clear explanation how the issue has been
> happened and why we need to fix it in a such way. Currently, I don't have the
> complete picture how this happened. I am sure that you have the complete
> picture. :) Could you please share what you have in your mind? :) Don't hide the
> wisdom. ;)
    fc_mount()
     vfs_get_tree()
      get_tree_bdev_flags()
       hfsplus_fill_super() 
        hfsplus_btree_open() 
         hfsplus_bnode_find(tree, HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) 
          __hfs_bnode_create()
	   ...
	   node->this = cnid; // cnid is HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD, it is 0
	   ...
	  ...
	  desc = (struct hfs_bnode_desc *)(kmap_local_page(node->page[0])
	  node->type = desc->type;
	  switch (node->type) {
	  ...
	  default:  // because node->type is 127, so run here
	  	goto node_error;
	  ...
	  hfs_bnode_put()
	   ...
	   if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_DELETED, &node->flags)) { /* head node not set HFS_BNODE_DELETED flag
							     * so, the node will never be freed.
							     * Furthermore, even if the node were marked
							     * with the HFS_BNODE_DELETED flag, hfs_bmap_free()
							     * would still trigger BUG_ON(!node->this).
	   						     */

Edward
BR

Re: [PATCH] hfsplus: Supports freeing newly created tree head

[Viacheslav Dubeyko]

On Sat, 2026-04-18 at 17:37 +0800, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:03:17 -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > > hfs_bnode_put() does not support deallocating a newly created btree
> > > head node; therefore, regardless of whether hfsplus_bnode_find() succeeds
> > > or fails, it cannot effectively reclaim the memory allocated for a newly
> > > created head node.
> > > 
> > > When finding a head node, if the node is a newly created one, we can use
> > > hfs_bnode_free() to reclaim its memory.
> > > 
> > > [1]
> > > BUG: memory leak
> > > unreferenced object 0xffff88811cabc840 (size 96):
> > >   backtrace (crc 3e2dadb7):
> > >     __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
> > >     hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
> > >     hfsplus_btree_open+0x2fa/0x6d0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
> > >     hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548
> > 
> > I need slightly more detailed and clear explanation how the issue has been
> > happened and why we need to fix it in a such way. Currently, I don't have the
> > complete picture how this happened. I am sure that you have the complete
> > picture. :) Could you please share what you have in your mind? :) Don't hide the
> > wisdom. ;)
>     fc_mount()
>      vfs_get_tree()
>       get_tree_bdev_flags()
>        hfsplus_fill_super() 

We have multiple calls of hfsplus_btree_open(). Which particular b-tree do you
mean here?

>         hfsplus_btree_open() 

I assume that you mean hfs_btree_open().

>          hfsplus_bnode_find(tree, HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD)
> 

We call hfs_bnode_find() here.

>  
>           __hfs_bnode_create()
> 	   ...
> 	   node->this = cnid; // cnid is HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD, it is 0
> 	   ...
> 	  ...
> 	  desc = (struct hfs_bnode_desc *)(kmap_local_page(node->page[0])
> 	  node->type = desc->type;
> 	  switch (node->type) {
> 	  ...
> 	  default:  // because node->type is 127, so run here
> 	  	goto node_error;

I think, maybe, we need to add some error message(s) when some error is
happened. What do you think?

> 	  ...
> 	  hfs_bnode_put()
> 	   ...
> 	   if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_DELETED, &node->flags)) { /* head node not set HFS_BNODE_DELETED flag
> 							     * so, the node will never be freed.
> 							     * Furthermore, even if the node were marked
> 							     * with the HFS_BNODE_DELETED flag, hfs_bmap_free()
> 							     * would still trigger BUG_ON(!node->this).
> 	   						     */

 node_error:
 	set_bit(HFS_BNODE_ERROR, &node->flags);
-	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
-	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {

Why do we need to distinguish is it HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD or not? I don't see any
difference in node processing.

+		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);

I think that we don't need to clear the HFS_BNODE_NEW. Because, we need to
analyze HFS_BNODE_ERROR in hfs_bnode_put().

+		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);

I assume that wake_up() should be called anyway. Why have you removed this call
for HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD case?

+	}
 	hfs_bnode_put(node);
 	return ERR_PTR(-EIO);

@@ -694,6 +698,10 @@ void hfs_bnode_put(struct hfs_bnode *node)
 			hfs_bnode_free(node);
 			return;
 		}
+		if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {

I suggest to analyze HFS_BNODE_ERROR here.

+			hfs_bnode_unhash(node);
+			hfs_bnode_free(node);
+		}

@@ -598,14 +598,18 @@ struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_find(struct hfs_btree *tree,
u32 num)
 		if (key_size >= entry_size || key_size & 1)
 			goto node_error;
 	}
-	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
-	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
+	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
+		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
+		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);

What the point in this code? Why have you change the logic here?

+	}
 	return node;

And, could you please add these new details into the commit message?

Thanks,
Slava.

Re: [PATCH] hfsplus: Supports freeing newly created tree head

[Edward Adam Davis]

Hi Viacheslav Dubeyko,
Apologies for the late reply.

On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:19:10 -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> On Sat, 2026-04-18 at 17:37 +0800, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:03:17 -0700, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote:
> > > > hfs_bnode_put() does not support deallocating a newly created btree
> > > > head node; therefore, regardless of whether hfsplus_bnode_find() succeeds
> > > > or fails, it cannot effectively reclaim the memory allocated for a newly
> > > > created head node.
> > > >
> > > > When finding a head node, if the node is a newly created one, we can use
> > > > hfs_bnode_free() to reclaim its memory.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > BUG: memory leak
> > > > unreferenced object 0xffff88811cabc840 (size 96):
> > > >   backtrace (crc 3e2dadb7):
> > > >     __hfs_bnode_create+0x59/0x310 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:469
> > > >     hfsplus_bnode_find+0x13e/0x580 fs/hfsplus/bnode.c:547
> > > >     hfsplus_btree_open+0x2fa/0x6d0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:382
> > > >     hfsplus_fill_super+0x272/0x880 fs/hfsplus/super.c:548
> > >
> > > I need slightly more detailed and clear explanation how the issue has been
> > > happened and why we need to fix it in a such way. Currently, I don't have the
> > > complete picture how this happened. I am sure that you have the complete
> > > picture. :) Could you please share what you have in your mind? :) Don't hide the
> > > wisdom. ;)
> >     fc_mount()
> >      vfs_get_tree()
> >       get_tree_bdev_flags()
> >        hfsplus_fill_super()
> 
> We have multiple calls of hfsplus_btree_open(). Which particular b-tree do you
> mean here?
> 
> >         hfsplus_btree_open()
> 
> I assume that you mean hfs_btree_open().
> 
> >          hfsplus_bnode_find(tree, HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD)
> >
> 
> We call hfs_bnode_find() here.
> 
> >
> >           __hfs_bnode_create()
> > 	   ...
> > 	   node->this = cnid; // cnid is HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD, it is 0
> > 	   ...
> > 	  ...
> > 	  desc = (struct hfs_bnode_desc *)(kmap_local_page(node->page[0])
> > 	  node->type = desc->type;
> > 	  switch (node->type) {
> > 	  ...
> > 	  default:  // because node->type is 127, so run here
Following "default," the comment I added clearly indicates that the
issue stems from the `type` value being 127.
> > 	  	goto node_error;
> 
> I think, maybe, we need to add some error message(s) when some error is
> happened. What do you think?
> 
> > 	  ...
> > 	  hfs_bnode_put()
> > 	   ...
> > 	   if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_DELETED, &node->flags)) { /* head node not set HFS_BNODE_DELETED flag
> > 							     * so, the node will never be freed.
> > 							     * Furthermore, even if the node were marked
> > 							     * with the HFS_BNODE_DELETED flag, hfs_bmap_free()
> > 							     * would still trigger BUG_ON(!node->this).
Please note the comments I added above.
> > 	   						     */
> 
>  node_error:
>  	set_bit(HFS_BNODE_ERROR, &node->flags);
> -	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
> -	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
> +	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
> 
> Why do we need to distinguish is it HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD or not? I don't see any
> difference in node processing.
> 
> +		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
> 
> I think that we don't need to clear the HFS_BNODE_NEW. Because, we need to
> analyze HFS_BNODE_ERROR in hfs_bnode_put().
> 
> +		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
> 
> I assume that wake_up() should be called anyway. Why have you removed this call
> for HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD case?
Based on my analysis, hfs_bnode_find() does not support searching for
HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD.
> 
> +	}
>  	hfs_bnode_put(node);
>  	return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
> 
> @@ -694,6 +698,10 @@ void hfs_bnode_put(struct hfs_bnode *node)
>  			hfs_bnode_free(node);
>  			return;
>  		}
> +		if (test_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags)) {
> 
> I suggest to analyze HFS_BNODE_ERROR here.
Only the new head node will reach this point, no further analysis is
required.
> 
> +			hfs_bnode_unhash(node);
> +			hfs_bnode_free(node);
> +		}
> 
> @@ -598,14 +598,18 @@ struct hfs_bnode *hfs_bnode_find(struct hfs_btree *tree,
> u32 num)
>  		if (key_size >= entry_size || key_size & 1)
>  			goto node_error;
>  	}
> -	clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
> -	wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
> +	if (num != HFSPLUS_TREE_HEAD) {
> +		clear_bit(HFS_BNODE_NEW, &node->flags);
> +		wake_up(&node->lock_wq);
> 
> What the point in this code? Why have you change the logic here?
To support tree head.
> 
> +	}
>  	return node;
> 
> And, could you please add these new details into the commit message?
OK.

Edward
BR