linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in lock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:05:12 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     syzbot 
        <bot+0415e5f62aec83dfecbd675dfd1e16d73be06542@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: WARNING in lock_release

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 02:56:00AM -0800, syzbot wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> syzkaller hit the following crash on
>> 5515cf16e270538121e4fa9283fed86c6cfd8c9c
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/master
>> compiler: gcc (GCC) 7.1.1 20170620
>> .config is attached
>> Raw console output is attached.
>> C reproducer is attached
>> syzkaller reproducer is attached. See https://goo.gl/kgGztJ
>> for information about syzkaller reproducers
>
> Hmm...   That's alloc_super() buggering off on allocation failure and
> hitting up_write(s->s_umount) in destroy_unused_super(), since it has
> not done
>         init_rwsem(&s->s_umount);
>         lockdep_set_class(&s->s_umount, &type->s_umount_key);
>         down_write_nested(&s->s_umount, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> part yet.  The sucker is just all-zeroes here.  The easiest way to fix
> that would probably be to move that bit of initialization in the very
> beginning...
>
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index 8ca15415351a..2808aeaf5337 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -190,6 +190,24 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags,
>
>         INIT_LIST_HEAD(&s->s_mounts);
>         s->s_user_ns = get_user_ns(user_ns);
> +       init_rwsem(&s->s_umount);
> +       lockdep_set_class(&s->s_umount, &type->s_umount_key);
> +       /*
> +        * sget() can have s_umount recursion.
> +        *
> +        * When it cannot find a suitable sb, it allocates a new
> +        * one (this one), and tries again to find a suitable old
> +        * one.
> +        *
> +        * In case that succeeds, it will acquire the s_umount
> +        * lock of the old one. Since these are clearly distrinct
> +        * locks, and this object isn't exposed yet, there's no
> +        * risk of deadlocks.
> +        *
> +        * Annotate this by putting this lock in a different
> +        * subclass.
> +        */
> +       down_write_nested(&s->s_umount, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>
>         if (security_sb_alloc(s))
>                 goto fail;
> @@ -217,25 +235,6 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags,
>                 goto fail;
>         if (list_lru_init_memcg(&s->s_inode_lru))
>                 goto fail;
> -
> -       init_rwsem(&s->s_umount);
> -       lockdep_set_class(&s->s_umount, &type->s_umount_key);
> -       /*
> -        * sget() can have s_umount recursion.
> -        *
> -        * When it cannot find a suitable sb, it allocates a new
> -        * one (this one), and tries again to find a suitable old
> -        * one.
> -        *
> -        * In case that succeeds, it will acquire the s_umount
> -        * lock of the old one. Since these are clearly distrinct
> -        * locks, and this object isn't exposed yet, there's no
> -        * risk of deadlocks.
> -        *
> -        * Annotate this by putting this lock in a different
> -        * subclass.
> -        */
> -       down_write_nested(&s->s_umount, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>         s->s_count = 1;
>         atomic_set(&s->s_active, 1);
>         mutex_init(&s->s_vfs_rename_mutex);


Hi,

We are rolling out patch testing feature for syzbot:
https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/master/docs/syzbot.md#communication-with-syzbot
So if you are asking for testing, feel free to use it. If not, let's
still give it a try (it also needs testing):

#syz test: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
master

View attachment "super.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1806 bytes)