| 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: <20200911122503.503512875@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 14:46:05 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.4 22/62] btrfs: drop path before adding new uuid tree entry
From: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
commit 9771a5cf937129307d9f58922d60484d58ababe7 upstream.
With the conversion of the tree locks to rwsem I got the following
lockdep splat:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.8.0-rc7-00167-g0d7ba0c5b375-dirty #925 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs-uuid/7955 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88bfbafec0f8 (btrfs-root-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88bfbafef2a8 (btrfs-uuid-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (btrfs-uuid-00){++++}-{3:3}:
down_read_nested+0x3e/0x140
__btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180
__btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x4bd/0x990
btrfs_uuid_tree_add+0x89/0x2d0
btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread+0x330/0x390
kthread+0x133/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #0 (btrfs-root-00){++++}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1272/0x2310
lock_acquire+0x9e/0x360
down_read_nested+0x3e/0x140
__btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180
__btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x4bd/0x990
btrfs_find_root+0x45/0x1b0
btrfs_read_tree_root+0x61/0x100
btrfs_get_root_ref.part.50+0x143/0x630
btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate+0x207/0x314
btrfs_uuid_rescan_kthread+0x12/0x50
kthread+0x133/0x150
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-uuid-00);
lock(btrfs-root-00);
lock(btrfs-uuid-00);
lock(btrfs-root-00);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by btrfs-uuid/7955:
#0: ffff88bfbafef2a8 (btrfs-uuid-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180
stack backtrace:
CPU: 73 PID: 7955 Comm: btrfs-uuid Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.8.0-rc7-00167-g0d7ba0c5b375-dirty #925
Hardware name: Quanta Tioga Pass Single Side 01-0030993006/Tioga Pass Single Side, BIOS F08_3A18 12/20/2018
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x78/0xa0
check_noncircular+0x165/0x180
__lock_acquire+0x1272/0x2310
lock_acquire+0x9e/0x360
? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180
? btrfs_root_node+0x1c/0x1d0
down_read_nested+0x3e/0x140
? __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180
__btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x39/0x180
__btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x3a/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x4bd/0x990
btrfs_find_root+0x45/0x1b0
btrfs_read_tree_root+0x61/0x100
btrfs_get_root_ref.part.50+0x143/0x630
btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate+0x207/0x314
? btree_readpage+0x20/0x20
btrfs_uuid_rescan_kthread+0x12/0x50
kthread+0x133/0x150
? kthread_create_on_node+0x60/0x60
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
This problem exists because we have two different rescan threads,
btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread which creates the uuid tree, and
btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate that goes through and updates or deletes any out
of date roots. The problem is they both do things in different order.
btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread() reads the tree_root, and then inserts entries
into the uuid_root. btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate() scans the uuid_root, but
then does a btrfs_get_fs_root() which can read from the tree_root.
It's actually easy enough to not be holding the path in
btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread() when we add a uuid entry, as we already drop
it further down and re-start the search when we loop. So simply move
the path release before we add our entry to the uuid tree.
This also fixes a problem where we're holding a path open after we do
btrfs_end_transaction(), which has it's own problems.
CC: stable@...r.kernel.org # 4.4+
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -4065,6 +4065,7 @@ static int btrfs_uuid_scan_kthread(void
goto skip;
}
update_tree:
+ btrfs_release_path(path);
if (!btrfs_is_empty_uuid(root_item.uuid)) {
ret = btrfs_uuid_tree_add(trans, fs_info->uuid_root,
root_item.uuid,
@@ -4090,6 +4091,7 @@ update_tree:
}
skip:
+ btrfs_release_path(path);
if (trans) {
ret = btrfs_end_transaction(trans, fs_info->uuid_root);
trans = NULL;
@@ -4097,7 +4099,6 @@ skip:
break;
}
- btrfs_release_path(path);
if (key.offset < (u64)-1) {
key.offset++;
} else if (key.type < BTRFS_ROOT_ITEM_KEY) {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists