linux-kernel - Re: general protection fault (btrfs_real

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20160518131136.ctel5laww2c3dd5m@floor.thefacebook.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 09:11:36 -0400
From:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: general protection fault (btrfs_real_readdir)

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:21:14PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > I'm running the latest Linus git tree and the parallel filesystem directory
> > handling update seems to cause the following issue:
>  
> >  Call Trace:
> >   [<ffffffff812f038b>] ? btrfs_real_readdir+0x44b/0x540
> >   [<ffffffff811b064d>] ? SyS_getdents+0x12d/0x2a0
> >   [<ffffffff811affa0>] ? SyS_ioctl+0x6a0/0x6a0
> >   [<ffffffff810923db>] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x13/0x8f
> >  Code: 02 00 00 00 00 ad de eb 1e f0 ff 4b 60 74 73 49 8b 47 40 49 8d 57 40 4c 89 fb 48 39 d5 4c 8d 78 c0 0f 84 8d 00 00 00 48 8b 53 48 <48> 89 50 08 48 89 02 4c 89 6b 40 4c 89 63 48 48 8b 4b 21 49 3b 
> >  RIP  [<ffffffff8134e9f3>] btrfs_readdir_delayed_dir_index+0x73/0x120
> >   RSP <ffff8801076e3dc0>
> >  ---[ end trace 91067801e8a68a7e ]---
> > 
> > This happened while I was building gcc, so the system was very busy.
> 
> From a very superficial reading of delayed-inode.c, it looks like delayed
> node might need locking...  This
>         list_for_each_entry_safe(curr, next, ins_list, readdir_list) {
>                 list_del(&curr->readdir_list);
> looks particularly unpleasant.  Just to make sure that this *is* just a
> readdir issue (and not something involving lookups), could you try to
> reproduce the breakage with 972b241f8 reverted?

Yeah, it does expect the mutex to be held, sorry Al I missed this when
you asked.  I'll cook a patch today.

-chris