| 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: <CAL3q7H5OofJLPpbdYHZdDpC7xukspvsi1-f2L_aGqJLQ0hgZfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 09:55:42 +0000
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...nel.org>
To: Wei Chen <harperchen1110@...il.com>
Cc: clm@...com, josef@...icpanda.com, dsterba@...e.com,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in btrfs_chunk_alloc
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 10:04 AM Wei Chen <harperchen1110@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Linux Developer,
>
> Recently when using our tool to fuzz kernel, the following crash was triggered:
>
> HEAD commit: 64570fbc14f8 Linux 5.15-rc5
Why are you testing an rc of an old kernel? What's the point?
It only makes sense to test a rc of a kernel not yet released (6.1 at
the moment).
This particular issue you are reporting was fixed long ago by a commit
that landed in 5.16-rc1:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2bb2e00ed9787e52580bb651264b8d6a2b7a9dd2
Thanks.
> git tree: upstream
> compiler: gcc 8.0.1
> console output:
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/16S-XGN2bCukp9yV3RX3yA4HSLMhaRXn0/view?usp=share_link
> kernel config: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uDOeEYgJDcLiSOrx9W8v2bqZ6uOA_55t/view?usp=share_link
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this crash yet.
>
> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
> Reported-by: Wei Chen <harperchen1110@...il.com>
>
> loop0: detected capacity change from 0 to 264192
> ======================================================
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 5.15.0-rc5 #1 Not tainted
> ------------------------------------------------------
> syz-executor.0/3767 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff8880171388c8 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x1d1/0x8c0
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff888013a947b8 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x2e/0x210
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{3:3}:
> down_read_nested+0x3e/0x150
> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x2e/0x210
> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x4f/0x230
> btrfs_search_slot+0xb0c/0x1310
> btrfs_update_device+0x7a/0x1f0
> btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x14e/0x520
> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x4ff/0x8c0
> find_free_extent+0x1a67/0x25a0
> btrfs_reserve_extent+0xe2/0x280
> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x103/0x700
> __btrfs_cow_block+0x1bc/0x900
> btrfs_cow_block+0x159/0x3d0
> btrfs_search_slot+0x93b/0x1310
> btrfs_insert_empty_items+0x8a/0x110
> btrfs_insert_empty_inode+0x61/0x90
> create_reloc_inode.isra.34+0x1d3/0x590
> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x1af/0x520
> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x46/0x190
> btrfs_balance+0x12d3/0x1f40
> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x41a/0x530
> btrfs_ioctl+0x1230/0x4520
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0xe8/0x140
> do_syscall_64+0x34/0xb0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>
> -> #0 (&fs_info->chunk_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> __lock_acquire+0x126a/0x1d60
> lock_acquire+0xd7/0x330
> __mutex_lock+0x96/0x9a0
> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x1d1/0x8c0
> find_free_extent+0x1a67/0x25a0
> btrfs_reserve_extent+0xe2/0x280
> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x103/0x700
> __btrfs_cow_block+0x1bc/0x900
> btrfs_cow_block+0x159/0x3d0
> btrfs_search_slot+0x93b/0x1310
> relocate_tree_blocks+0x7e6/0xad0
> relocate_block_group+0x223/0x620
> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x289/0x520
> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x46/0x190
> btrfs_balance+0x12d3/0x1f40
> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x41a/0x530
> btrfs_ioctl+0x1230/0x4520
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0xe8/0x140
> do_syscall_64+0x34/0xb0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(btrfs-chunk-00);
> lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> lock(btrfs-chunk-00);
> lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 5 locks held by syz-executor.0/3767:
> #0: ffff888013cf7460 (sb_writers#18){.+.+}-{0:0}, at:
> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x57/0x530
> #1: ffff88801713a098 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> btrfs_balance+0xd85/0x1f40
> #2: ffff888017138838 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x281/0x520
> #3: ffff888013cf7650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at:
> relocate_block_group+0xd0/0x620
> #4: ffff888013a947b8 (btrfs-chunk-00){++++}-{3:3}, at:
> __btrfs_tree_lock+0x2e/0x210
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 3767 Comm: syz-executor.0 Not tainted 5.15.0-rc5 #1
> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
> rel-1.13.0-48-gd9c812dda519-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134
> check_noncircular+0xfe/0x110
> __lock_acquire+0x126a/0x1d60
> lock_acquire+0xd7/0x330
> __mutex_lock+0x96/0x9a0
> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x1d1/0x8c0
> find_free_extent+0x1a67/0x25a0
> btrfs_reserve_extent+0xe2/0x280
> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x103/0x700
> __btrfs_cow_block+0x1bc/0x900
> btrfs_cow_block+0x159/0x3d0
> btrfs_search_slot+0x93b/0x1310
> relocate_tree_blocks+0x7e6/0xad0
> relocate_block_group+0x223/0x620
> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x289/0x520
> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x46/0x190
> btrfs_balance+0x12d3/0x1f40
> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x41a/0x530
> btrfs_ioctl+0x1230/0x4520
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0xe8/0x140
> do_syscall_64+0x34/0xb0
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> RIP: 0033:0x4692c9
> Code: f7 d8 64 89 02 b8 ff ff ff ff c3 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 89 f8 48
> 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d
> 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 bc ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> RSP: 002b:00007fde662c7c38 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00000000004692c9
> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00000000c4009420 RDI: 0000000000000005
> RBP: 000000000119bfb0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000119bfac
> R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 000000000119bfa0 R15: 00007ffe41266cf0
>
> Best,
> Wei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists