[syzbot] [overlayfs?] possible deadlock in ovl_nlink_start

From: syzbot
Date: Fri Apr 19 2024 - 01:37:33 EST

Next message: Thomas Gleixner: "Re: Early boot regression from f0551af0213 ("x86/topology: Ignore non-present APIC IDs in a present package")"
Previous message: Thomas Gleixner: "Re: [PATCH v9 1/8] x86/tlb: add APIs manipulating tlb batch's arch data"
Next in thread: Miklos Szeredi: "Re: [syzbot] [overlayfs?] possible deadlock in ovl_nlink_start"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hello,

syzbot found the following issue on:

HEAD commit: fe46a7dd189e Merge tag 'sound-6.9-rc1' of git://git.kernel..
git tree: upstream
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=106c9fa3180000
kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=4d90a36f0cab495a
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=5ad5425056304cbce654
compiler: Debian clang version 15.0.6, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.40

Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.

Downloadable assets:
disk image: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/72ab73815344/disk-fe46a7dd.raw.xz
vmlinux: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/2d6d6b0d7071/vmlinux-fe46a7dd.xz
kernel image: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/48e275e5478b/bzImage-fe46a7dd.xz

IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+5ad5425056304cbce654@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.8.0-syzkaller-08951-gfe46a7dd189e #0 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor.4/10551 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88807383ff38 (&ovl_i_lock_key[depth]){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: ovl_inode_lock_interruptible fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.h:654 [inline]
ffff88807383ff38 (&ovl_i_lock_key[depth]){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: ovl_nlink_start+0xdc/0x390 fs/overlayfs/util.c:1162

but task is already holding lock:
ffff88807383fb80 (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){++++}-{3:3}, at: inode_lock include/linux/fs.h:793 [inline]
ffff88807383fb80 (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){++++}-{3:3}, at: vfs_rmdir+0x101/0x4c0 fs/namei.c:4198

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){++++}-{3:3}:
lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
down_read+0xb1/0xa40 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1526
inode_lock_shared include/linux/fs.h:803 [inline]
lookup_slow+0x45/0x70 fs/namei.c:1708
walk_component+0x2e1/0x410 fs/namei.c:2004
lookup_last fs/namei.c:2461 [inline]
path_lookupat+0x16f/0x450 fs/namei.c:2485
filename_lookup+0x256/0x610 fs/namei.c:2514
kern_path+0x35/0x50 fs/namei.c:2622
lookup_bdev+0xc5/0x290 block/bdev.c:1072
resume_store+0x1a0/0x710 kernel/power/hibernate.c:1235
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x3a4/0x500 fs/kernfs/file.c:334
call_write_iter include/linux/fs.h:2108 [inline]
new_sync_write fs/read_write.c:497 [inline]
vfs_write+0xa84/0xcb0 fs/read_write.c:590
ksys_write+0x1a0/0x2c0 fs/read_write.c:643
do_syscall_64+0xfb/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75

-> #1 (&of->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752
kernfs_fop_llseek+0x7e/0x2a0 fs/kernfs/file.c:867
ovl_llseek+0x314/0x470 fs/overlayfs/file.c:218
vfs_llseek fs/read_write.c:289 [inline]
ksys_lseek fs/read_write.c:302 [inline]
__do_sys_lseek fs/read_write.c:313 [inline]
__se_sys_lseek fs/read_write.c:311 [inline]
__x64_sys_lseek+0x153/0x1e0 fs/read_write.c:311
do_syscall_64+0xfb/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75

-> #0 (&ovl_i_lock_key[depth]){+.+.}-{3:3}:
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]
validate_chain+0x18cb/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869
__lock_acquire+0x1346/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137
lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752
ovl_inode_lock_interruptible fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.h:654 [inline]
ovl_nlink_start+0xdc/0x390 fs/overlayfs/util.c:1162
ovl_do_remove+0x1fa/0xd90 fs/overlayfs/dir.c:893
vfs_rmdir+0x367/0x4c0 fs/namei.c:4209
do_rmdir+0x3b5/0x580 fs/namei.c:4268
__do_sys_rmdir fs/namei.c:4287 [inline]
__se_sys_rmdir fs/namei.c:4285 [inline]
__x64_sys_rmdir+0x49/0x60 fs/namei.c:4285
do_syscall_64+0xfb/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
&ovl_i_lock_key[depth] --> &of->mutex --> &ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]

Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]);
lock(&of->mutex);
lock(&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]);
lock(&ovl_i_lock_key[depth]);

*** DEADLOCK ***

3 locks held by syz-executor.4/10551:
#0: ffff88806386a420 (sb_writers#28){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: mnt_want_write+0x3f/0x90 fs/namespace.c:409
#1: ffff888076f2aff0 (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: inode_lock_nested include/linux/fs.h:828 [inline]
#1: ffff888076f2aff0 (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: do_rmdir+0x263/0x580 fs/namei.c:4256
#2: ffff88807383fb80 (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){++++}-{3:3}, at: inode_lock include/linux/fs.h:793 [inline]
#2: ffff88807383fb80 (&ovl_i_mutex_dir_key[depth]){++++}-{3:3}, at: vfs_rmdir+0x101/0x4c0 fs/namei.c:4198

stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 10551 Comm: syz-executor.4 Not tainted 6.8.0-syzkaller-08951-gfe46a7dd189e #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 03/27/2024
Call Trace:
<TASK>
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:88 [inline]
dump_stack_lvl+0x241/0x360 lib/dump_stack.c:114
check_noncircular+0x36a/0x4a0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2187
check_prev_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3134 [inline]
check_prevs_add kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3253 [inline]
validate_chain+0x18cb/0x58e0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3869
__lock_acquire+0x1346/0x1fd0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5137
lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x530 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752
ovl_inode_lock_interruptible fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.h:654 [inline]
ovl_nlink_start+0xdc/0x390 fs/overlayfs/util.c:1162
ovl_do_remove+0x1fa/0xd90 fs/overlayfs/dir.c:893
vfs_rmdir+0x367/0x4c0 fs/namei.c:4209
do_rmdir+0x3b5/0x580 fs/namei.c:4268
__do_sys_rmdir fs/namei.c:4287 [inline]
__se_sys_rmdir fs/namei.c:4285 [inline]
__x64_sys_rmdir+0x49/0x60 fs/namei.c:4285
do_syscall_64+0xfb/0x240
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6d/0x75
RIP: 0033:0x7f210ca7de69
Code: 28 00 00 00 75 05 48 83 c4 28 c3 e8 e1 20 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 b0 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
RSP: 002b:00007f210d8860c8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000054
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007f210cbabf80 RCX: 00007f210ca7de69
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000020000000
RBP: 00007f210caca47a R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: 000000000000000b R14: 00007f210cbabf80 R15: 00007fff023ba638
</TASK>

---
This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.

If the report is already addressed, let syzbot know by replying with:
#syz fix: exact-commit-title

If you want to overwrite report's subsystems, reply with:
#syz set subsystems: new-subsystem
(See the list of subsystem names on the web dashboard)

If the report is a duplicate of another one, reply with:
#syz dup: exact-subject-of-another-report

If you want to undo deduplication, reply with:
#syz undup

Next message: Thomas Gleixner: "Re: Early boot regression from f0551af0213 ("x86/topology: Ignore non-present APIC IDs in a present package")"
Previous message: Thomas Gleixner: "Re: [PATCH v9 1/8] x86/tlb: add APIs manipulating tlb batch's arch data"
Next in thread: Miklos Szeredi: "Re: [syzbot] [overlayfs?] possible deadlock in ovl_nlink_start"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]