| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20221122115715.kxqhsk2xs4nrofyb@quack3>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 12:57:15 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Jeremi Piotrowski <jpiotrowski@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Thilo Fromm <t-lo@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>, jack@...e.com, tytso@....edu,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in jbd2_journal_lock_updates
On Mon 21-11-22 10:15:58, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 04:00:18PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 21-11-22 14:35:59, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Fri 11-11-22 07:52:38, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:10:29AM -0800, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 03:24:24PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu 10-11-22 11:27:01, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 04:26:37PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu 10-11-22 04:57:58, Jeremi Piotrowski wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:18:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon 24-10-22 18:32:51, Thilo Fromm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello Honza,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, I was pondering about this for some time but still I have no clue who
> > > > > > > > > > > > could be holding the buffer lock (which blocks the task holding the
> > > > > > > > > > > > transaction open) or how this could related to the commit you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > identified. I have two things to try:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Can you please check whether the deadlock reproduces also with 6.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > kernel? The thing is that xattr handling code in ext4 has there some
> > > > > > > > > > > > additional changes, commit 307af6c8793 ("mbcache: automatically delete
> > > > > > > > > > > > entries from cache on freeing") in particular.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This would be complex; we currently do not integrate 6.0 with Flatcar and
> > > > > > > > > > > would need to spend quite some effort ingesting it first (mostly, make sure
> > > > > > > > > > > the new kernel does not break something unrelated). Flatcar is an
> > > > > > > > > > > image-based distro, so kernel updates imply full distro updates.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OK, understood.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2) I have created a debug patch (against 5.15.x stable kernel). Can you
> > > > > > > > > > > > please reproduce the failure with it and post the output of "echo w
> > > > > > > > > > > > > /proc/sysrq-trigger" and also the output the debug patch will put into the
> > > > > > > > > > > > kernel log? It will dump the information about buffer lock owner if we > cannot get the lock for more than 32 seconds.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This would be more straightforward - I can reach out to one of our users
> > > > > > > > > > > suffering from the issue; they can reliably reproduce it and don't shy away
> > > > > > > > > > > from patching their kernel. Where can I find the patch?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ha, my bad. I forgot to attach it. Here it is.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unfortunately this patch produced no output, but I have been able to repro so I
> > > > > > > > > understand why: except for the hung tasks, we have 1+ tasks busy-looping through
> > > > > > > > > the following code in ext4_xattr_block_set():
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > inserted:
> > > > > > > > > if (!IS_LAST_ENTRY(s->first)) {
> > > > > > > > > new_bh = ext4_xattr_block_cache_find(inode, header(s->base),
> > > > > > > > > &ce);
> > > > > > > > > if (new_bh) {
> > > > > > > > > /* We found an identical block in the cache. */
> > > > > > > > > if (new_bh == bs->bh)
> > > > > > > > > ea_bdebug(new_bh, "keeping");
> > > > > > > > > else {
> > > > > > > > > u32 ref;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(dquot_initialize_needed(inode));
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > /* The old block is released after updating
> > > > > > > > > the inode. */
> > > > > > > > > error = dquot_alloc_block(inode,
> > > > > > > > > EXT4_C2B(EXT4_SB(sb), 1));
> > > > > > > > > if (error)
> > > > > > > > > goto cleanup;
> > > > > > > > > BUFFER_TRACE(new_bh, "get_write_access");
> > > > > > > > > error = ext4_journal_get_write_access(
> > > > > > > > > handle, sb, new_bh,
> > > > > > > > > EXT4_JTR_NONE);
> > > > > > > > > if (error)
> > > > > > > > > goto cleanup_dquot;
> > > > > > > > > lock_buffer(new_bh);
> > > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > > > * We have to be careful about races with
> > > > > > > > > * adding references to xattr block. Once we
> > > > > > > > > * hold buffer lock xattr block's state is
> > > > > > > > > * stable so we can check the additional
> > > > > > > > > * reference fits.
> > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > ref = le32_to_cpu(BHDR(new_bh)->h_refcount) + 1;
> > > > > > > > > if (ref > EXT4_XATTR_REFCOUNT_MAX) {
> > > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > > > * Undo everything and check mbcache
> > > > > > > > > * again.
> > > > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > > > unlock_buffer(new_bh);
> > > > > > > > > dquot_free_block(inode,
> > > > > > > > > EXT4_C2B(EXT4_SB(sb),
> > > > > > > > > 1));
> > > > > > > > > brelse(new_bh);
> > > > > > > > > mb_cache_entry_put(ea_block_cache, ce);
> > > > > > > > > ce = NULL;
> > > > > > > > > new_bh = NULL;
> > > > > > > > > goto inserted;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The tasks keep taking the 'goto inserted' branch, and never finish. I've been
> > > > > > > > > able to repro with kernel v6.0.7 as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Interesting! That makes is much clearer (and also makes my debug patch
> > > > > > > > unnecessary). So clearly the e_reusable variable in the mb_cache_entry got
> > > > > > > > out of sync with the number of references really in the xattr block - in
> > > > > > > > particular the block likely has h_refcount >= EXT4_XATTR_REFCOUNT_MAX but
> > > > > > > > e_reusable is set to true. Now I can see how e_reusable can stay at false due
> > > > > > > > to a race when refcount is actually smaller but I don't see how it could
> > > > > > > > stay at true when refcount is big enough - that part seems to be locked
> > > > > > > > properly. If you can reproduce reasonably easily, can you try reproducing
> > > > > > > > with attached patch? Thanks!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure, with that patch I'm getting the following output, reusable is false on
> > > > > > > most items until we hit something with reusable true and then that loops
> > > > > > > indefinitely:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks. So that is what I've suspected. I'm still not 100% clear on how
> > > > > > this inconsistency can happen although I have a suspicion - does attached
> > > > > > patch fix the problem for you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also is it possible to share the reproducer or it needs some special
> > > > > > infrastructure?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Honza
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll test the patch and report back.
> > > > >
> > > > > Attached you'll find the reproducer, for me it reproduces within a few minutes.
> > > > > It brings up a k8s node and then runs 3 instances of the application which
> > > > > creates a lot of small files in a loop. The OS we run it on has selinux enabled
> > > > > in permissive mode, that might play a role.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I can still reproduce it with the patch.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the answer! So I was trying to make your reproducer work on my
> > > system but it was not so easy on openSUSE ;). Anyway, when working on this
> > > I've realized there may be a simpler way to tickle the bug and indeed, I
> > > can now trigger it with a simple C program. So thanks for your help, I'm
> > > now debugging the issue on my system.
> >
> > OK, attached patch fixes the deadlock for me. Can you test whether it fixes
> > the problem for you as well? Thanks!
>
> I'll test the fix tomorrow, but I've noticed it doesn't apply cleanly to
> 5.15.78, which seems to be missing:
>
> - 5fc4cbd9fde5d4630494fd6ffc884148fb618087 mbcache: Avoid nesting of cache->c_list_lock under bit locks
> (this one is marked for stable but not in 5.15?)
> - 307af6c879377c1c63e71cbdd978201f9c7ee8df mbcache: automatically delete entries from cache on freeing
> (this one is not marked for stable)
>
> So either a special backport is needed or these two would need to be applied as
> well.
Right. The fix is against current mainline kernel. Stable tree backports
are a second step once the fix is confirmed to work :). Let me know in case
you need help with porting to the kernel version you need for testing.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists