[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [syzbot] [reiserfs?] possible deadlock in open_xa_dir
On 5/5/2023 11:36 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 4:51 PM syzbot
> <> wrote:
>> syzbot has bisected this issue to:
>> commit d82dcd9e21b77d338dc4875f3d4111f0db314a7c
>> Author: Roberto Sassu <>
>> Date: Fri Mar 31 12:32:18 2023 +0000
>> reiserfs: Add security prefix to xattr name in reiserfs_security_write()
>> bisection log:
>> start commit: 3c4aa4434377 Merge tag 'ceph-for-6.4-rc1' of https://githu..
>> git tree: upstream
>> final oops:
>> console output:
>> kernel config:
>> dashboard link:
>> syz repro:
>> C reproducer:
>> Reported-by:
>> Fixes: d82dcd9e21b7 ("reiserfs: Add security prefix to xattr name in reiserfs_security_write()")
>> For information about bisection process see:
> I don't think Roberto's patch identified above is the actual root
> cause of this problem as reiserfs_xattr_set_handle() is called in
> reiserfs_security_write() both before and after the patch. However,
> due to some bad logic in reiserfs_security_write() which Roberto
> corrected, I'm thinking that it is possible this code is being
> exercised for the first time and syzbot is starting to trigger a
> locking issue in the reiserfs code ... ?

+ Jan, Jeff (which basically restructured the lock)

+ Petr, Ingo, Will

I involve the lockdep experts, to get a bit of help on this.

First of all, the lockdep warning is trivial to reproduce:

# dd if=/dev/zero of=reiserfs.img bs=1M count=100
# losetup -f --show reiserfs.img
# mkfs.reiserfs /dev/loop0
# mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/
# touch file0

In the testing system, Smack is the major LSM.

Ok, so the warning here is clear:

However, I was looking if that can really happen. From this:

[ 77.746561][ T5418] -> #1 (&sbi->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 77.753772][ T5418] lock_acquire+0x23e/0x630
[ 77.758792][ T5418] __mutex_lock_common+0x1d8/0x2530
[ 77.764504][ T5418] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
[ 77.769868][ T5418] reiserfs_write_lock+0x70/0xc0
[ 77.775321][ T5418] reiserfs_mkdir+0x321/0x870

I see that the lock is taken in reiserfs_write_lock(), while lockdep says:

[ 77.710227][ T5418] but task is already holding lock:
[ 77.717587][ T5418] ffff88807568d090 (&sbi->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:

which is in a different place, I believe here:

int reiserfs_paste_into_item(struct reiserfs_transaction_handle *th,
/* Path to the pasted item. */

depth = reiserfs_write_unlock_nested(sb);
dquot_free_space_nodirty(inode, pasted_size);
reiserfs_write_lock_nested(sb, depth);
return retval;

This is called by reiserfs_add_entry(), which is called by
reiserfs_create() (it is in the lockdep trace). After returning to
reiserfs_create(), d_instantiate_new() is called.

I don't know exactly, I take the part that the lock is held. But if it
is held, how d_instantiate_new() can be executed in another task?

static int reiserfs_create(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, struct inode *dir,
struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode, bool excl)



retval = journal_begin(&th, dir->i_sb, jbegin_count);


d_instantiate_new(dentry, inode);
retval = journal_end(&th);


If the lock is held, the scenario lockdep describes cannot happen. Any



 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-31 11:51    [W:0.082 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site