Re: possible deadlock in ovl_write_iter

From: Dmitry Vyukov
Date: Tue Nov 27 2018 - 10:48:57 EST

Next message: Dmitry Vyukov: "Re: KASAN: out-of-bounds in update_curr"
Previous message: David Laight: "RE: [PATCH] arm: always update thread_info->syscall"
In reply to: Amir Goldstein: "Re: possible deadlock in ovl_write_iter"
Next in thread: Amir Goldstein: "Re: possible deadlock in ovl_write_iter"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:06 AM syzbot
> <syzbot+695726bc473f9c36a4b6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> syzbot has found a reproducer for the following crash on:
>>
>> HEAD commit: 6f8b52ba442c Merge tag 'hwmon-for-v4.20-rc5' of git://git...
>> git tree: upstream
>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=120f3905400000
>> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=c94f9f0c0363db4b
>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=695726bc473f9c36a4b6
>> compiler: gcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180413 (experimental)
>> syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=10cad225400000
>> C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=13813093400000
>>
>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
>> Reported-by: syzbot+695726bc473f9c36a4b6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> overlayfs: filesystem on './file0' not supported as upperdir
>>
>> ======================================================
>> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>> 4.20.0-rc4+ #351 Not tainted
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> syz-executor338/5996 is trying to acquire lock:
>> 00000000b59bb66d (&ovl_i_mutex_key[depth]){+.+.}, at: inode_lock
>> include/linux/fs.h:757 [inline]
>> 00000000b59bb66d (&ovl_i_mutex_key[depth]){+.+.}, at:
>> ovl_write_iter+0x151/0xd10 fs/overlayfs/file.c:231
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> 00000000e0274330 (&pipe->mutex/1){+.+.}, at: pipe_lock_nested fs/pipe.c:62
>> [inline]
>> 00000000e0274330 (&pipe->mutex/1){+.+.}, at: pipe_lock+0x6e/0x80
>> fs/pipe.c:70
>>
>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>
>>
>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>
>> -> #2 (&pipe->mutex/1){+.+.}:
>> __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:925 [inline]
>> __mutex_lock+0x166/0x16f0 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1072
>> mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20 kernel/locking/mutex.c:1087
>> pipe_lock_nested fs/pipe.c:62 [inline]
>> pipe_lock+0x6e/0x80 fs/pipe.c:70
>> iter_file_splice_write+0x27d/0x1050 fs/splice.c:700
>> do_splice_from fs/splice.c:851 [inline]
>> do_splice+0x64a/0x1430 fs/splice.c:1147
>> __do_sys_splice fs/splice.c:1414 [inline]
>> __se_sys_splice fs/splice.c:1394 [inline]
>> __x64_sys_splice+0x2c1/0x330 fs/splice.c:1394
>> do_syscall_64+0x1b9/0x820 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290
>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>>
>> -> #1 (sb_writers#3){.+.+}:
>> percpu_down_read_preempt_disable include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h:36
>> [inline]
>> percpu_down_read include/linux/percpu-rwsem.h:59 [inline]
>> __sb_start_write+0x214/0x370 fs/super.c:1387
>> sb_start_write include/linux/fs.h:1597 [inline]
>> mnt_want_write+0x3f/0xc0 fs/namespace.c:360
>> ovl_want_write+0x76/0xa0 fs/overlayfs/util.c:24
>> ovl_setattr+0x10b/0xaf0 fs/overlayfs/inode.c:30
>> notify_change+0xbde/0x1110 fs/attr.c:334
>> do_truncate+0x1bd/0x2d0 fs/open.c:63
>> handle_truncate fs/namei.c:3008 [inline]
>> do_last fs/namei.c:3424 [inline]
>> path_openat+0x375f/0x5150 fs/namei.c:3534
>> do_filp_open+0x255/0x380 fs/namei.c:3564
>> do_sys_open+0x568/0x700 fs/open.c:1063
>> __do_sys_openat fs/open.c:1090 [inline]
>> __se_sys_openat fs/open.c:1084 [inline]
>> __x64_sys_openat+0x9d/0x100 fs/open.c:1084
>> do_syscall_64+0x1b9/0x820 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290
>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>>
>> -> #0 (&ovl_i_mutex_key[depth]){+.+.}:
>> lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3844
>> down_write+0x8a/0x130 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:70
>> inode_lock include/linux/fs.h:757 [inline]
>> ovl_write_iter+0x151/0xd10 fs/overlayfs/file.c:231
>> call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:1857 [inline]
>> new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:474 [inline]
>> __vfs_write+0x6b8/0x9f0 fs/read_write.c:487
>> __kernel_write+0x10c/0x370 fs/read_write.c:506
>> write_pipe_buf+0x180/0x240 fs/splice.c:797
>> splice_from_pipe_feed fs/splice.c:503 [inline]
>> __splice_from_pipe+0x38b/0x7c0 fs/splice.c:627
>> splice_from_pipe+0x1ec/0x340 fs/splice.c:662
>> default_file_splice_write+0x3c/0x90 fs/splice.c:809
>> do_splice_from fs/splice.c:851 [inline]
>> do_splice+0x64a/0x1430 fs/splice.c:1147
>> __do_sys_splice fs/splice.c:1414 [inline]
>> __se_sys_splice fs/splice.c:1394 [inline]
>> __x64_sys_splice+0x2c1/0x330 fs/splice.c:1394
>> do_syscall_64+0x1b9/0x820 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290
>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>
>> Chain exists of:
>> &ovl_i_mutex_key[depth] --> sb_writers#3 --> &pipe->mutex/1
>>
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ---- ----
>> lock(&pipe->mutex/1);
>> lock(sb_writers#3);
>> lock(&pipe->mutex/1);
>> lock(&ovl_i_mutex_key[depth]);
>>
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>
>> 2 locks held by syz-executor338/5996:
>> #0: 00000000024e7b73 (sb_writers#8){.+.+}, at: file_start_write
>> include/linux/fs.h:2810 [inline]
>> #0: 00000000024e7b73 (sb_writers#8){.+.+}, at: do_splice+0xd2e/0x1430
>> fs/splice.c:1146
>> #1: 00000000e0274330 (&pipe->mutex/1){+.+.}, at: pipe_lock_nested
>> fs/pipe.c:62 [inline]
>> #1: 00000000e0274330 (&pipe->mutex/1){+.+.}, at: pipe_lock+0x6e/0x80
>> fs/pipe.c:70
>>
>> stack backtrace:
>> CPU: 0 PID: 5996 Comm: syz-executor338 Not tainted 4.20.0-rc4+ #351
>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS
>> Google 01/01/2011
>> Call Trace:
>> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
>> dump_stack+0x244/0x39d lib/dump_stack.c:113
>> print_circular_bug.isra.35.cold.54+0x1bd/0x27d
>> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1221
>> check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1863 [inline]
>> check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1976 [inline]
>> validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2347 [inline]
>> __lock_acquire+0x3399/0x4c20 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3341
>> lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x520 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3844
>> down_write+0x8a/0x130 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:70
>> inode_lock include/linux/fs.h:757 [inline]
>> ovl_write_iter+0x151/0xd10 fs/overlayfs/file.c:231
>> call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:1857 [inline]
>> new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:474 [inline]
>> __vfs_write+0x6b8/0x9f0 fs/read_write.c:487
>> __kernel_write+0x10c/0x370 fs/read_write.c:506
>> write_pipe_buf+0x180/0x240 fs/splice.c:797
>> splice_from_pipe_feed fs/splice.c:503 [inline]
>> __splice_from_pipe+0x38b/0x7c0 fs/splice.c:627
>> splice_from_pipe+0x1ec/0x340 fs/splice.c:662
>> default_file_splice_write+0x3c/0x90 fs/splice.c:809
>> do_splice_from fs/splice.c:851 [inline]
>> do_splice+0x64a/0x1430 fs/splice.c:1147
>> __do_sys_splice fs/splice.c:1414 [inline]
>> __se_sys_splice fs/splice.c:1394 [inline]
>> __x64_sys_splice+0x2c1/0x330 fs/splice.c:1394
>> do_syscall_64+0x1b9/0x820 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290
>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>> RIP: 0033:0x445ad9
>> Code: e8 5c b7 02 00 48 83 c4 18 c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 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 0f 83 2b 12 fc ff c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00
>> RSP: 002b:00007f18e3f71cd8 EFLAGS: 00000216 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000113
>> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00000000006dac78 RCX: 0000000000445ad9
>> RDX: 000000000000000a RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000007
>> RBP: 00000000006dac70 R08: 000100000000000a R09: 0000000000000007
>> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000216 R12: 00000000006dac7c
>> R13: 00007ffde0706e9f R14: 00007f18e3f729c0 R15: 00000000006dad4c
>>
>
> This looks like a false positive because lockdep is not aware of
> s_stack_depth of the file (fs) associated with the pipe.

There must be some annotation to tell lockdep about this.

>
> HOWEVER, because overlayfs calls do_splice_direct() on copy up,
> it is important to make sure that higher layer do_splice_direct() cannot
> recursively trigger copy up.
>
> At this time, overlayfs does the copy up on open for write, so any
> higher layer do_splice_direct() will already get an out file that has been
> copied up, but with future plans for "lazy copy up on first write", we need
> to be careful.
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "syzkaller-bugs" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syzkaller-bugs+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/syzkaller-bugs/CAOQ4uxgiERNAyX4PDHf1DQLBg56rBANWLe575TGkz_WpbxaoCg%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Next message: Dmitry Vyukov: "Re: KASAN: out-of-bounds in update_curr"
Previous message: David Laight: "RE: [PATCH] arm: always update thread_info->syscall"
In reply to: Amir Goldstein: "Re: possible deadlock in ovl_write_iter"
Next in thread: Amir Goldstein: "Re: possible deadlock in ovl_write_iter"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]