| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 13:21:47 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org, roberto.sassu@...wei.com,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
syzbot <syzbot+0a684c061589dcc30e51@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [reiserfs?] INFO: task hung in flush_old_commits
On Fri 26-05-23 11:45:57, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 17:57 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:50 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <roberto.sassu@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2023-05-24 at 11:11 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 5:59 AM syzbot
> > > > <syzbot+0a684c061589dcc30e51@...kaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > syzbot has bisected this issue to:
> > > > >
> > > > > commit d82dcd9e21b77d338dc4875f3d4111f0db314a7c
> > > > > Author: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>
> > > > > Date: Fri Mar 31 12:32:18 2023 +0000
> > > > >
> > > > > reiserfs: Add security prefix to xattr name in reiserfs_security_write()
> > > > >
> > > > > bisection log: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=11c39639280000
> > > > > start commit: 421ca22e3138 Merge tag 'nfs-for-6.4-2' of git://git.linux-..
> > > > > git tree: upstream
> > > > > final oops: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=13c39639280000
> > > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=15c39639280000
> > > > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=7d8067683055e3f5
> > > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=0a684c061589dcc30e51
> > > > > syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=14312791280000
> > > > > C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=12da8605280000
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+0a684c061589dcc30e51@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > > Fixes: d82dcd9e21b7 ("reiserfs: Add security prefix to xattr name in reiserfs_security_write()")
> > > > >
> > > > > For information about bisection process see: https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection
> > > >
> > > > Roberto, I think we need to resolve this somehow. As I mentioned
> > > > earlier, I don't believe this to be a fault in your patch, rather that
> > > > patch simply triggered a situation that had not been present before,
> > > > likely because the reiserfs code always failed when writing LSM
> > > > xattrs. Regardless, we still need to fix the deadlocks that sysbot
> > > > has been reporting.
> > >
> > > Hi Paul
> > >
> > > ok, I will try.
> >
> > Thanks Roberto. If it gets to be too challenging, let us know and we
> > can look into safely disabling the LSM xattrs for reiserfs, I'll be
> > shocked if anyone is successfully using LSM xattrs on reiserfs.
>
> Ok, at least I know what happens...
>
> + Jan, Jeff
>
> I'm focusing on this reproducer, which works 100% of the times:
>
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=ReproSyz&x=163079f9280000
Well, the commit d82dcd9e21b ("reiserfs: Add security prefix to xattr name
in reiserfs_security_write()") looks obviously broken to me. It does:
char xattr_name[XATTR_NAME_MAX + 1] = XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX;
Which is not how we can initialize strings in C... ;)
Honza
>
> This is the last lock, before things go wrong:
>
> Thread 5 hit Breakpoint 2, reiserfs_write_lock (s=s@...ry=0xffff888066e28000) at fs/reiserfs/lock.c:24
> 24 {
> (gdb) bt
> #0 reiserfs_write_lock (s=s@...ry=0xffff888066e28000) at fs/reiserfs/lock.c:24
> #1 0xffffffff821a559a in reiserfs_get_block (inode=inode@...ry=0xffff888069fd0190, block=block@...ry=15, bh_result=bh_result@...ry=0xffff888075940000, create=create@...ry=1) at fs/reiserfs/inode.c:680
> #2 0xffffffff81f50254 in __block_write_begin_int (folio=0xffffea00019a9180, pos=pos@...ry=61440, len=len@...ry=1, get_block=get_block@...ry=0xffffffff821a5390 <reiserfs_get_block>, iomap=iomap@...ry=0x0 <fixed_percpu_data>) at fs/buffer.c:2064
> #3 0xffffffff81f5165a in __block_write_begin (page=page@...ry=0xffffea00019a9180, pos=pos@...ry=61440, len=len@...ry=1, get_block=get_block@...ry=0xffffffff821a5390 <reiserfs_get_block>) at ./arch/x86/include/asm/jump_label.h:27
> #4 0xffffffff821a3e3d in reiserfs_write_begin (file=<optimized out>, mapping=<optimized out>, pos=61440, len=1, pagep=<optimized out>, fsdata=<optimized out>) at fs/reiserfs/inode.c:2779
> #5 0xffffffff81aec252 in generic_perform_write (iocb=iocb@...ry=0xffffc9002130fb60, i=i@...ry=0xffffc9002130fd00) at mm/filemap.c:3923
> #6 0xffffffff81b0604e in __generic_file_write_iter (iocb=iocb@...ry=0xffffc9002130fb60, from=from@...ry=0xffffc9002130fd00) at mm/filemap.c:4051
> #7 0xffffffff81b06383 in generic_file_write_iter (iocb=0xffffc9002130fb60, from=0xffffc9002130fd00) at mm/filemap.c:4083
> #8 0xffffffff81e3240b in call_write_iter (file=0xffff888012692d00, iter=0xffffc9002130fd00, kio=0xffffc9002130fb60) at ./include/linux/fs.h:1868
> #9 do_iter_readv_writev (filp=filp@...ry=0xffff888012692d00, iter=iter@...ry=0xffffc9002130fd00, ppos=ppos@...ry=0xffffc9002130fe90, type=type@...ry=1, flags=flags@...ry=0) at fs/read_write.c:735
> #10 0xffffffff81e33da4 in do_iter_write (flags=0, pos=0xffffc9002130fe90, iter=0xffffc9002130fd00, file=0xffff888012692d00) at fs/read_write.c:860
> #11 do_iter_write (file=0xffff888012692d00, iter=0xffffc9002130fd00, pos=0xffffc9002130fe90, flags=0) at fs/read_write.c:841
> #12 0xffffffff81e34611 in vfs_writev (file=file@...ry=0xffff888012692d00, vec=vec@...ry=0x20000480, vlen=vlen@...ry=1, pos=pos@...ry=0xffffc9002130fe90, flags=flags@...ry=0) at fs/read_write.c:933
> #13 0xffffffff81e34fd6 in do_pwritev (fd=fd@...ry=5, vec=vec@...ry=0x20000480, vlen=vlen@...ry=1, pos=pos@...ry=61440, flags=flags@...ry=0) at fs/read_write.c:1030
> #14 0xffffffff81e3b61f in __do_sys_pwritev2 (pos_h=<optimized out>, flags=0, pos_l=61440, vlen=1, vec=0x20000480, fd=5) at fs/read_write.c:1089
> #15 __se_sys_pwritev2 (pos_h=<optimized out>, flags=0, pos_l=61440, vlen=1, vec=536872064, fd=5) at fs/read_write.c:1080
> #16 __x64_sys_pwritev2 (regs=0xffffc9002130ff58) at fs/read_write.c:1080
> #17 0xffffffff880dd279 in do_syscall_x64 (nr=<optimized out>, regs=0xffffc9002130ff58) at arch/x86/entry/common.c:50
> #18 do_syscall_64 (regs=0xffffc9002130ff58, nr=<optimized out>) at arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> #19 0xffffffff8820008b in entry_SYSCALL_64 () at arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:120
> #20 0x0000000000406e00 in ?? ()
> #21 0x00007f99e21b5000 in ?? ()
> #22 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
>
> After that, there is a very long loop doing:
>
> Thread 5 hit Breakpoint 3, reiserfs_read_bitmap_block (sb=sb@...ry=0xffff888066e28000, bitmap=bitmap@...ry=1) at fs/reiserfs/bitmap.c:1417
> 1417 {
> (gdb) c
> Continuing.
>
> Thread 5 hit Breakpoint 3, reiserfs_read_bitmap_block (sb=sb@...ry=0xffff888066e28000, bitmap=bitmap@...ry=2) at fs/reiserfs/bitmap.c:1417
> 1417 {
> (gdb)
> Continuing.
>
> and so on...
>
> [ 628.589974][ T6003] REISERFS warning (device loop0): sh-2029: %s: bitmap block (#%u) reading failed reiserfs_read_bitmap_block: reiserfs_read_bitmap_block
>
> This message appears because we are here:
>
> struct buffer_head *reiserfs_read_bitmap_block(struct super_block *sb,
> unsigned int bitmap)
> {
>
> [...]
>
> bh = sb_bread(sb, block);
> if (bh == NULL)
> reiserfs_warning(sb, "sh-2029: %s: bitmap block (#%u) "
> "reading failed", __func__, block);
>
> The hanging task (kthread) is trying to hold the same lock, which
> unfortunately is not going to be released soon:
>
> static int reiserfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *s, int wait)
> {
>
> [...]
>
> reiserfs_write_lock(s);
>
> I didn't get yet if the reason of this long loop is because we cannot
> flush at this point, or just because of the test. I tried to
> synchronously flush, but didn't make any difference.
>
> I did a very simple change, which can be totally wrong:
>
> @@ -94,7 +96,7 @@ static void flush_old_commits(struct work_struct *work)
> * trylock as reiserfs_cancel_old_flush() may be waiting for this work
> * to complete with s_umount held.
> */
> - if (!down_read_trylock(&s->s_umount)) {
> + if (sbi->lock_owner || !down_read_trylock(&s->s_umount)) {
> /* Requeue work if we are not cancelling it */
> spin_lock(&sbi->old_work_lock);
> if (sbi->work_queued == 1)
>
>
> If the lock is held, instead of waiting, reschedule the flush.
>
> Anyway, at least this report does not seem to be related to fixing
> security xattrs.
>
> Roberto
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists