Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in ext4_bmap

From: syzbot
Date: Mon Aug 08 2022 - 15:02:34 EST

Next message: Michael Walle: "Re: [PATCH 2/4] thermal/of: Return -ENODEV instead of -EINVAL if registration fails"
Previous message: Mark Brown: "Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] regmap: mmio: Don't unprepare attached clock"
In reply to: syzbot: "[syzbot] possible deadlock in ext4_bmap"
Next in thread: Jason Yan: "Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in ext4_bmap"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:

HEAD commit: ca688bff68bc Add linux-next specific files for 20220808
git tree: linux-next
console+strace: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=15a71e71080000
kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=4c20e006003cdecb
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=9543479984ae9e576000
compiler: gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2
syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=1551c53e080000
C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=14fcdbfa080000

IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+9543479984ae9e576000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

warning: checkpointing journal with EXT4_IOC_CHECKPOINT_FLAG_ZEROOUT can be slow
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-next-20220808-syzkaller #0 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor725/3607 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff888144c48400 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){++++}-{3:3}, at: inode_lock_shared include/linux/fs.h:771 [inline]
ffff888144c48400 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){++++}-{3:3}, at: ext4_bmap+0x4e/0x460 fs/ext4/inode.c:3157

but task is already holding lock:
ffff88807ec503f8 (&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: jbd2_journal_flush+0x487/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2472

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #3 (&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:603 [inline]
mutex_lock_io_nested+0x13f/0x1190 kernel/locking/mutex.c:833
jbd2_journal_flush+0x19a/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2462
ext4_ioctl_checkpoint fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1082 [inline]
__ext4_ioctl+0x28fd/0x4ab0 fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1586
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:870 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:856 [inline]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:856
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #2 (&journal->j_barrier){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:603 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x12f/0x1350 kernel/locking/mutex.c:747
jbd2_journal_lock_updates+0x15e/0x310 fs/jbd2/transaction.c:904
ext4_change_inode_journal_flag+0x180/0x530 fs/ext4/inode.c:6014
ext4_ioctl_setflags fs/ext4/ioctl.c:685 [inline]
ext4_fileattr_set+0xddf/0x1930 fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1001
vfs_fileattr_set+0x7f5/0xbe0 fs/ioctl.c:696
ioctl_fssetxattr fs/ioctl.c:758 [inline]
do_vfs_ioctl+0xe62/0x15c0 fs/ioctl.c:845
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:868 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:856 [inline]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x108/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:856
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #1 (&sbi->s_writepages_rwsem){++++}-{0:0}:
percpu_down_write+0x4d/0x440 kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c:221
ext4_ind_migrate+0x237/0x840 fs/ext4/migrate.c:624
ext4_ioctl_setflags fs/ext4/ioctl.c:694 [inline]
ext4_fileattr_set+0x14b8/0x1930 fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1001
vfs_fileattr_set+0x7f5/0xbe0 fs/ioctl.c:696
ioctl_fssetxattr fs/ioctl.c:758 [inline]
do_vfs_ioctl+0xe62/0x15c0 fs/ioctl.c:845
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:868 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:856 [inline]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x108/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:856
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

-> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){++++}-{3:3}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3095 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3214 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3829 [inline]
__lock_acquire+0x2a43/0x56d0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5053
lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5666 [inline]
lock_acquire+0x1ab/0x570 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5631
down_read+0x98/0x450 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1499
inode_lock_shared include/linux/fs.h:771 [inline]
ext4_bmap+0x4e/0x460 fs/ext4/inode.c:3157
bmap+0xaa/0x120 fs/inode.c:1799
jbd2_journal_bmap+0xa8/0x180 fs/jbd2/journal.c:971
__jbd2_journal_erase fs/jbd2/journal.c:1784 [inline]
jbd2_journal_flush+0x84f/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2490
ext4_ioctl_checkpoint fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1082 [inline]
__ext4_ioctl+0x28fd/0x4ab0 fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1586
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:870 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:856 [inline]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:856
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8 --> &journal->j_barrier --> &journal->j_checkpoint_mutex

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex);
lock(&journal->j_barrier);
lock(&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex);
lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8);

*** DEADLOCK ***

2 locks held by syz-executor725/3607:
#0: ffff88807ec50170 (&journal->j_barrier){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: jbd2_journal_lock_updates+0x15e/0x310 fs/jbd2/transaction.c:904
#1: ffff88807ec503f8 (&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: jbd2_journal_flush+0x487/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2472

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 3607 Comm: syz-executor725 Not tainted 5.19.0-next-20220808-syzkaller #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 07/22/2022
Call Trace:
<TASK>
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0xcd/0x134 lib/dump_stack.c:106
check_noncircular+0x25f/0x2e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2175
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3095 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3214 [inline]
validate_chain kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3829 [inline]
__lock_acquire+0x2a43/0x56d0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5053
lock_acquire kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5666 [inline]
lock_acquire+0x1ab/0x570 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5631
down_read+0x98/0x450 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1499
inode_lock_shared include/linux/fs.h:771 [inline]
ext4_bmap+0x4e/0x460 fs/ext4/inode.c:3157
bmap+0xaa/0x120 fs/inode.c:1799
jbd2_journal_bmap+0xa8/0x180 fs/jbd2/journal.c:971
__jbd2_journal_erase fs/jbd2/journal.c:1784 [inline]
jbd2_journal_flush+0x84f/0xc00 fs/jbd2/journal.c:2490
ext4_ioctl_checkpoint fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1082 [inline]
__ext4_ioctl+0x28fd/0x4ab0 fs/ext4/ioctl.c:1586
vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
__do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:870 [inline]
__se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:856 [inline]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:856
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
RIP: 0033:0x7fe2d1101d69
Code: 28 00 00 00 75 05 48 83 c4 28 c3 e8 b1 14 00 00 90 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 c0 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
RSP: 002b:00007ffd7aba8f78 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007fe2d1101d69
RDX: 0000000020000000 RSI: 000000004004662b RDI: 0000000000000004
RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 00007ffd7aba9118 R09: 00007ffd7aba9118
R10: 00007ffd7aba9118 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fe2d10c55f0
R13: 431bde82d7b634db R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
</TASK>

Next message: Michael Walle: "Re: [PATCH 2/4] thermal/of: Return -ENODEV instead of -EINVAL if registration fails"
Previous message: Mark Brown: "Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] regmap: mmio: Don't unprepare attached clock"
In reply to: syzbot: "[syzbot] possible deadlock in ext4_bmap"
Next in thread: Jason Yan: "Re: [syzbot] possible deadlock in ext4_bmap"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]