Re: [PATCH] nilfs2: drop the inode which has been removed

Ryusuke Konishi
2024-12-05T16:04:43Z

On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 9:26 PM Edward Adam Davis wrote:
>
> syzbot reported a WARNING in nilfs_rmdir. [1]
>
> The inode is used twice by the same task to unmount and remove directories
> ".nilfs" and "file0", it trigger warning in nilfs_rmdir.
>
> Avoid to this issue, check i_size and i_nlink in nilfs_iget(), if they are
> both 0, it means that this inode has been removed, and iput is executed to
> reclaim it.
>
> [1]
> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 5824 at fs/inode.c:407 drop_nlink+0xc4/0x110 fs/inode.c:407
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 5824 Comm: syz-executor223 Not tainted 6.12.0-syzkaller-12113-gbcc8eda6d349 #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 09/13/2024
> RIP: 0010:drop_nlink+0xc4/0x110 fs/inode.c:407
> Code: bb 70 07 00 00 be 08 00 00 00 e8 57 0b e6 ff f0 48 ff 83 70 07 00 00 5b 41 5c 41 5e 41 5f 5d c3 cc cc cc cc e8 9d 4c 7e ff 90 <0f> 0b 90 eb 83 44 89 e1 80 e1 07 80 c1 03 38 c1 0f 8c 5c ff ff ff
> RSP: 0018:ffffc900037f7c70 EFLAGS: 00010293
> RAX: ffffffff822124a3 RBX: 1ffff1100e7ae034 RCX: ffff88807cf53c00
> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000000
> RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffffffff82212423 R09: 1ffff1100f8ba8ee
> R10: dffffc0000000000 R11: ffffed100f8ba8ef R12: ffff888073d701a0
> R13: 1ffff1100e79f5c4 R14: ffff888073d70158 R15: dffffc0000000000
> FS: 0000555558d1e480(0000) GS:ffff8880b8700000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 0000555558d37878 CR3: 000000007d920000 CR4: 00000000003526f0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> nilfs_rmdir+0x1b0/0x250 fs/nilfs2/namei.c:342
> vfs_rmdir+0x3a3/0x510 fs/namei.c:4394
> do_rmdir+0x3b5/0x580 fs/namei.c:4453
> __do_sys_rmdir fs/namei.c:4472 [inline]
> __se_sys_rmdir fs/namei.c:4470 [inline]
> __x64_sys_rmdir+0x47/0x50 fs/namei.c:4470
> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
> do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+9260555647a5132edd48@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9260555647a5132edd48
> Signed-off-by: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@qq.com>
> ---
> fs/nilfs2/inode.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/inode.c b/fs/nilfs2/inode.c
> index cf9ba481ae37..254a5e46f8ea 100644
> --- a/fs/nilfs2/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/nilfs2/inode.c
> @@ -544,8 +544,15 @@ struct inode *nilfs_iget(struct super_block *sb, struct nilfs_root *root,
> inode = nilfs_iget_locked(sb, root, ino);
> if (unlikely(!inode))
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> - if (!(inode->i_state & I_NEW))
> +
> + if (!(inode->i_state & I_NEW)) {
> + if (!inode->i_size && !inode->i_nlink) {
> + make_bad_inode(inode);
> + iput(inode);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
> + }
> return inode;
> + }
>
> err = __nilfs_read_inode(sb, root, ino, inode);
> if (unlikely(err)) {
> --
> 2.47.0

Thank you Edward.

This fix seems good except for the i_size check, but I think we need
to look into what's going on a bit more.

I was unable to work for a while due to machine trouble, so I'd like
to know if you have made any progress on your investigation.

First, is this caused by a corrupted filesystem image? Or is it that
the directories or files with the same inode number were generated
during the namespace operations (due to a timing issue or something),
and could this problem occur even if the original filesystem image is
normal?

When I mounted the mount_0 image as read-only, the filesystem looked
normal without such inode duplication.

At least, nilfs_read_inode_common(), which reads inodes from block
devices, is implemented to return an error with -ESTALE if i_nlink ==
0. So it seems that nilfs_iget() picked up this inode with i_nlilnk
== 0 because it hit an inode being deleted in the inode cache. Why is
that happening?

Also, why do you put the i_size check as an AND condition?
i_size is independent of i_nlink and the inode lifecycles. If i_size
is also broken, this check will not work properly.
If something is not working and you have included it as a workaround,
I would like to know about it.

Thanks,
Ryusuke Konishi