[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YGtVtfbYXck3qPRl@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 18:23:49 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
syzbot <syzbot+c88a7030da47945a3cc3@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING in mntput_no_expire (2)
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 07:08:01PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> Ah dentry count of -127 looks... odd.
dead + 1...
void lockref_mark_dead(struct lockref *lockref)
{
assert_spin_locked(&lockref->lock);
lockref->count = -128;
}
IOW, a leaked (uncounted) reference to dentry, that got dget() called on
it after dentry had been freed.
IOW, current->fs->pwd.dentry happens to point to an already freed
struct dentry here. Joy...
Could you slap
spin_lock(¤t->fs->lock);
WARN_ON(d_count(current->fs->pwd.dentry) < 0);
spin_unlock(¤t->fs->lock);
before and after calls of io_issue_sqe() and see if it triggers? We definitely
are seeing buggered dentry refcounting here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists