[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac02c4c9-86c2-5c40-5add-b5e7ec0aab7d@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2020 20:39:04 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+36baa6c2180e959e19b1@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>,
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@...tab.net>
Subject: Re: WARNING: bad unlock balance in rcu_core
On 2020-02-27 07:18, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:58 AM Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:27:07AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
>>> syzbot has found a reproducer for the following crash on:
>>>
>>> HEAD commit: 0e9d28bc Add linux-next specific files for 20191015
>>> git tree: linux-next
>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=11745608e00000
>>> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=3d84ca04228b0bf4
>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=36baa6c2180e959e19b1
>>> compiler: gcc (GCC) 9.0.0 20181231 (experimental)
>>> syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=159d297f600000
>>> C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16289b30e00000
>>>
>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+36baa6c2180e959e19b1@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>>>
>>> =====================================
>>> WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!
>>> 5.4.0-rc3-next-20191015 #0 Not tainted
>>> -------------------------------------
>>> syz-executor276/8897 is trying to release lock (rcu_callback) at:
>>> [<ffffffff8160e7a4>] __write_once_size include/linux/compiler.h:226 [inline]
>>> [<ffffffff8160e7a4>] __rcu_reclaim kernel/rcu/rcu.h:221 [inline]
>>> [<ffffffff8160e7a4>] rcu_do_batch kernel/rcu/tree.c:2157 [inline]
>>> [<ffffffff8160e7a4>] rcu_core+0x574/0x1560 kernel/rcu/tree.c:2377
>>> but there are no more locks to release!
>>>
>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>> 1 lock held by syz-executor276/8897:
>>> #0: ffff88809a3cc0d8 (&type->s_umount_key#40/1){+.+.}, at:
>>> alloc_super+0x158/0x910 fs/super.c:229
>>>
>>> stack backtrace:
>>> CPU: 0 PID: 8897 Comm: syz-executor276 Not tainted 5.4.0-rc3-next-20191015
>>> #0
>>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS
>>> Google 01/01/2011
>>> Call Trace:
>>> <IRQ>
>>> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
>>> dump_stack+0x172/0x1f0 lib/dump_stack.c:113
>>> print_unlock_imbalance_bug kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4008 [inline]
>>> print_unlock_imbalance_bug.cold+0x114/0x123 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3984
>>> __lock_release kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4244 [inline]
>>> lock_release+0x5f2/0x960 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4505
>>> rcu_lock_release include/linux/rcupdate.h:213 [inline]
>>> __rcu_reclaim kernel/rcu/rcu.h:223 [inline]
>>
>> I have little knowledge about this kind of stuff, but after seeing
>> the dashboard https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=36baa6c2180e959e19b1
>>
>> I guess this is highly related with ntfs, and in ntfs_fill_super, it
>> has lockdep_off() in ntfs_fill_super...
>>
>> In detail, commit 90c1cba2b3b3 ("locking/lockdep: Zap lock classes even
>> with lock debugging disabled") [1], and free_zapped_rcu....
>>
>> static void free_zapped_rcu(struct rcu_head *ch)
>> {
>> struct pending_free *pf;
>> unsigned long flags;
>>
>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ch != &delayed_free.rcu_head))
>> return;
>>
>> raw_local_irq_save(flags);
>> arch_spin_lock(&lockdep_lock);
>> current->lockdep_recursion = 1; <--- here
>>
>> /* closed head */
>> pf = delayed_free.pf + (delayed_free.index ^ 1);
>> __free_zapped_classes(pf);
>> delayed_free.scheduled = false;
>>
>> /*
>> * If there's anything on the open list, close and start a new callback.
>> */
>> call_rcu_zapped(delayed_free.pf + delayed_free.index);
>>
>> current->lockdep_recursion = 0;
>> arch_spin_unlock(&lockdep_lock);
>> raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
>> }
>>
>> Completely guess and untest since I am not familar with that,
>> but in case of that, Cc related people...
>> If I'm wrong, ignore my comments and unintentional noise....
>>
>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=90c1cba2b3b3851c151229f61801919b2904d437
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gao Xiang
>
>
> Still happens a lot for the past 10 months:
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=0d5bdaf028e4283ad7404609d17e5077f48ff26d
Unless one of the NTFS maintainers steps in, should NTFS perhaps be
excluded from testing with lockdep enabled? This is what I found in the
git log of NTFS:
commit 59345374742ee6673c2d04b0fa8c888e881b7209
Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date: Mon Jul 3 00:25:18 2006 -0700
[PATCH] lockdep: annotate NTFS locking rules
NTFS uses lots of type-opaque objects which acquire their true
identity runtime - so the lock validator needs to be helped in a
couple of places to figure out object types.
Many thanks to Anton Altaparmakov for giving lots of explanations
about NTFS locking rules.
Has no effect on non-lockdep kernels.
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists