| 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: <20210924124333.540957262@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 14:44:27 +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, Su Yue <l@...enly.su>,
Anand Jain <anand.jain@...cle.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 38/50] btrfs: fix lockdep warning while mounting sprout fs
From: Anand Jain <anand.jain@...cle.com>
[ Upstream commit c124706900c20dee70f921bb3a90492431561a0a ]
Following test case reproduces lockdep warning.
Test case:
$ mkfs.btrfs -f <dev1>
$ btrfstune -S 1 <dev1>
$ mount <dev1> <mnt>
$ btrfs device add <dev2> <mnt> -f
$ umount <mnt>
$ mount <dev2> <mnt>
$ umount <mnt>
The warning claims a possible ABBA deadlock between the threads
initiated by [#1] btrfs device add and [#0] the mount.
[ 540.743122] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 540.743129] 5.11.0-rc7+ #5 Not tainted
[ 540.743135] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 540.743142] mount/2515 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 540.743149] ffffa0c5544c2ce0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: clone_fs_devices+0x6d/0x210 [btrfs]
[ 540.743458] but task is already holding lock:
[ 540.743461] ffffa0c54a7932b8 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{4:4}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x200 [btrfs]
[ 540.743541] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 540.743543] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 540.743546] -> #1 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{4:4}:
[ 540.743566] down_read_nested+0x48/0x2b0
[ 540.743585] __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x200 [btrfs]
[ 540.743650] btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x70/0x200 [btrfs]
[ 540.743733] btrfs_search_slot+0x6c6/0xe00 [btrfs]
[ 540.743785] btrfs_update_device+0x83/0x260 [btrfs]
[ 540.743849] btrfs_finish_chunk_alloc+0x13f/0x660 [btrfs] <--- device_list_mutex
[ 540.743911] btrfs_create_pending_block_groups+0x18d/0x3f0 [btrfs]
[ 540.743982] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x86/0x1260 [btrfs]
[ 540.744037] btrfs_init_new_device+0x1600/0x1dd0 [btrfs]
[ 540.744101] btrfs_ioctl+0x1c77/0x24c0 [btrfs]
[ 540.744166] __x64_sys_ioctl+0xe4/0x140
[ 540.744170] do_syscall_64+0x4b/0x80
[ 540.744174] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 540.744180] -> #0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}:
[ 540.744184] __lock_acquire+0x155f/0x2360
[ 540.744188] lock_acquire+0x10b/0x5c0
[ 540.744190] __mutex_lock+0xb1/0xf80
[ 540.744193] mutex_lock_nested+0x27/0x30
[ 540.744196] clone_fs_devices+0x6d/0x210 [btrfs]
[ 540.744270] btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x3c7/0xbb0 [btrfs]
[ 540.744336] open_ctree+0xf6e/0x2074 [btrfs]
[ 540.744406] btrfs_mount_root.cold.72+0x16/0x127 [btrfs]
[ 540.744472] legacy_get_tree+0x38/0x90
[ 540.744475] vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x140
[ 540.744478] fc_mount+0x16/0x60
[ 540.744482] vfs_kern_mount+0x91/0x100
[ 540.744484] btrfs_mount+0x1e6/0x670 [btrfs]
[ 540.744536] legacy_get_tree+0x38/0x90
[ 540.744537] vfs_get_tree+0x30/0x140
[ 540.744539] path_mount+0x8d8/0x1070
[ 540.744541] do_mount+0x8d/0xc0
[ 540.744543] __x64_sys_mount+0x125/0x160
[ 540.744545] do_syscall_64+0x4b/0x80
[ 540.744547] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
[ 540.744551] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 540.744552] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 540.744553] CPU0 CPU1
[ 540.744554] ---- ----
[ 540.744555] lock(btrfs-chunk-00);
[ 540.744557] lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
[ 540.744560] lock(btrfs-chunk-00);
[ 540.744562] lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex);
[ 540.744564]
*** DEADLOCK ***
[ 540.744565] 3 locks held by mount/2515:
[ 540.744567] #0: ffffa0c56bf7a0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#42/1){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: alloc_super.isra.16+0xdf/0x450
[ 540.744574] #1: ffffffffc05a9628 (uuid_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: btrfs_read_chunk_tree+0x63/0xbb0 [btrfs]
[ 540.744640] #2: ffffa0c54a7932b8 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{4:4}, at: __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x32/0x200 [btrfs]
[ 540.744708]
stack backtrace:
[ 540.744712] CPU: 2 PID: 2515 Comm: mount Not tainted 5.11.0-rc7+ #5
But the device_list_mutex in clone_fs_devices() is redundant, as
explained below. Two threads [1] and [2] (below) could lead to
clone_fs_device().
[1]
open_ctree <== mount sprout fs
btrfs_read_chunk_tree()
mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex) <== global lock
read_one_dev()
open_seed_devices()
clone_fs_devices() <== seed fs_devices
mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex) <== seed fs_devices
[2]
btrfs_init_new_device() <== sprouting
mutex_lock(&uuid_mutex); <== global lock
btrfs_prepare_sprout()
lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex)
clone_fs_devices(seed_fs_device) <== seed fs_devices
Both of these threads hold uuid_mutex which is sufficient to protect
getting the seed device(s) freed while we are trying to clone it for
sprouting [2] or mounting a sprout [1] (as above). A mounted seed device
can not free/write/replace because it is read-only. An unmounted seed
device can be freed by btrfs_free_stale_devices(), but it needs
uuid_mutex. So this patch removes the unnecessary device_list_mutex in
clone_fs_devices(). And adds a lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex) in
clone_fs_devices().
Reported-by: Su Yue <l@...enly.su>
Tested-by: Su Yue <l@...enly.su>
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 8deee49a6b3f..f302bbb93f32 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -742,6 +742,8 @@ static int btrfs_free_stale_devices(const char *path,
struct btrfs_device *device, *tmp_device;
int ret = 0;
+ lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex);
+
if (path)
ret = -ENOENT;
@@ -1181,11 +1183,12 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig)
struct btrfs_device *orig_dev;
int ret = 0;
+ lockdep_assert_held(&uuid_mutex);
+
fs_devices = alloc_fs_devices(orig->fsid, NULL);
if (IS_ERR(fs_devices))
return fs_devices;
- mutex_lock(&orig->device_list_mutex);
fs_devices->total_devices = orig->total_devices;
list_for_each_entry(orig_dev, &orig->devices, dev_list) {
@@ -1217,10 +1220,8 @@ static struct btrfs_fs_devices *clone_fs_devices(struct btrfs_fs_devices *orig)
device->fs_devices = fs_devices;
fs_devices->num_devices++;
}
- mutex_unlock(&orig->device_list_mutex);
return fs_devices;
error:
- mutex_unlock(&orig->device_list_mutex);
free_fs_devices(fs_devices);
return ERR_PTR(ret);
}
--
2.33.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists