linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [xfs?] WARNING in fsnotify_file_area

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7ehxrhbvehlrjwvrduoxsao5k3x4aw275patsb3krkwuq573yv@o2hskrfawbnc>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 12:06:58 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: syzbot <syzbot+7229071b47908b19d5b7@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, amir73il@...il.com, axboe@...nel.dk, 
	brauner@...nel.org, cem@...nel.org, chandan.babu@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org, 
	jack@...e.cz, josef@...icpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [xfs?] WARNING in fsnotify_file_area_perm

Josef, Amir,

this is indeed an interesting case:

On Sun 02-03-25 08:32:30, syzbot wrote:
> syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:
...
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 6440 at ./include/linux/fsnotify.h:145 fsnotify_file_area_perm+0x20c/0x25c include/linux/fsnotify.h:145
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 6440 Comm: syz-executor370 Not tainted 6.14.0-rc4-syzkaller-ge056da87c780 #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 12/27/2024
> pstate: 80400005 (Nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> pc : fsnotify_file_area_perm+0x20c/0x25c include/linux/fsnotify.h:145
> lr : fsnotify_file_area_perm+0x20c/0x25c include/linux/fsnotify.h:145
> sp : ffff8000a42569d0
> x29: ffff8000a42569d0 x28: ffff0000dcec1b48 x27: ffff0000d68a1708
> x26: ffff0000d68a16c0 x25: dfff800000000000 x24: 0000000000008000
> x23: 0000000000000001 x22: ffff8000a4256b00 x21: 0000000000001000
> x20: 0000000000000010 x19: ffff0000d68a16c0 x18: ffff8000a42566e0
> x17: 000000000000e388 x16: ffff800080466c24 x15: 0000000000000001
> x14: 1fffe0001b31513c x13: 0000000000000000 x12: 0000000000000000
> x11: 0000000000000001 x10: 0000000000ff0100 x9 : 0000000000000000
> x8 : ffff0000c6d98000 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000000
> x5 : 0000000000000020 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000001000
> x2 : ffff8000a4256b00 x1 : 0000000000000001 x0 : 0000000000000000
> Call trace:
>  fsnotify_file_area_perm+0x20c/0x25c include/linux/fsnotify.h:145 (P)
>  filemap_fault+0x12b0/0x1518 mm/filemap.c:3509
>  xfs_filemap_fault+0xc4/0x194 fs/xfs/xfs_file.c:1543
>  __do_fault+0xf8/0x498 mm/memory.c:4988
>  do_read_fault mm/memory.c:5403 [inline]
>  do_fault mm/memory.c:5537 [inline]
>  do_pte_missing mm/memory.c:4058 [inline]
>  handle_pte_fault+0x3504/0x57b0 mm/memory.c:5900
>  __handle_mm_fault mm/memory.c:6043 [inline]
>  handle_mm_fault+0xfa8/0x188c mm/memory.c:6212
>  do_page_fault+0x570/0x10a8 arch/arm64/mm/fault.c:690
>  do_translation_fault+0xc4/0x114 arch/arm64/mm/fault.c:783
>  do_mem_abort+0x74/0x200 arch/arm64/mm/fault.c:919
>  el1_abort+0x3c/0x5c arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:432
>  el1h_64_sync_handler+0x60/0xcc arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c:510
>  el1h_64_sync+0x6c/0x70 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S:595
>  __uaccess_mask_ptr arch/arm64/include/asm/uaccess.h:169 [inline] (P)
>  fault_in_readable+0x168/0x310 mm/gup.c:2234 (P)
>  fault_in_iov_iter_readable+0x1dc/0x22c lib/iov_iter.c:94
>  iomap_write_iter fs/iomap/buffered-io.c:950 [inline]
>  iomap_file_buffered_write+0x490/0xd54 fs/iomap/buffered-io.c:1039
>  xfs_file_buffered_write+0x2dc/0xac8 fs/xfs/xfs_file.c:792
>  xfs_file_write_iter+0x2c4/0x6ac fs/xfs/xfs_file.c:881
>  new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:586 [inline]
>  vfs_write+0x704/0xa9c fs/read_write.c:679

The backtrace actually explains it all. We had a buffered write whose
buffer was mmapped file on a filesystem with an HSM mark. Now the prefaulting
of the buffer happens already (quite deep) under the filesystem freeze
protection (obtained in vfs_write()) which breaks assumptions of HSM code
and introduces potential deadlock of HSM handler in userspace with filesystem
freezing. So we need to think how to deal with this case...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR