603d064d40
[ Upstream commit be4edd1642ee205ed7bbf66edc0453b1be1fb8d7 ]
Syzbot report potential ABBA deadlock as below:
loop0: detected capacity change from 0 to 1024
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.9.0-syzkaller-10323-g8f6a15f095a6 #0 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
syz-executor171/5344 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88807cb980b0 (&tree->tree_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: hfsplus_file_truncate+0x811/0xb50 fs/hfsplus/extents.c:595
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88807a930108 (&HFSPLUS_I(inode)->extents_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: hfsplus_file_truncate+0x2da/0xb50 fs/hfsplus/extents.c:576
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&HFSPLUS_I(inode)->extents_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752
hfsplus_file_extend+0x21b/0x1b70 fs/hfsplus/extents.c:457
hfsplus_bmap_reserve+0x105/0x4e0 fs/hfsplus/btree.c:358
hfsplus_rename_cat+0x1d0/0x1050 fs/hfsplus/catalog.c:456
hfsplus_rename+0x12e/0x1c0 fs/hfsplus/dir.c:552
vfs_rename+0xbdb/0xf00 fs/namei.c:4887
do_renameat2+0xd94/0x13f0 fs/namei.c:5044
__do_sys_rename fs/namei.c:5091 [inline]
__se_sys_rename fs/namei.c:5089 [inline]
__x64_sys_rename+0x86/0xa0 fs/namei.c:5089
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x240 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
-> #0 (&tree->tree_lock){+.+.}-{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+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754
__mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:608 [inline]
__mutex_lock+0x136/0xd70 kernel/locking/mutex.c:752
hfsplus_file_truncate+0x811/0xb50 fs/hfsplus/extents.c:595
hfsplus_setattr+0x1ce/0x280 fs/hfsplus/inode.c:265
notify_change+0xb9d/0xe70 fs/attr.c:497
do_truncate+0x220/0x310 fs/open.c:65
handle_truncate fs/namei.c:3308 [inline]
do_open fs/namei.c:3654 [inline]
path_openat+0x2a3d/0x3280 fs/namei.c:3807
do_filp_open+0x235/0x490 fs/namei.c:3834
do_sys_openat2+0x13e/0x1d0 fs/open.c:1406
do_sys_open fs/open.c:1421 [inline]
__do_sys_creat fs/open.c:1497 [inline]
__se_sys_creat fs/open.c:1491 [inline]
__x64_sys_creat+0x123/0x170 fs/open.c:1491
do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline]
do_syscall_64+0xf5/0x240 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&HFSPLUS_I(inode)->extents_lock);
lock(&tree->tree_lock);
lock(&HFSPLUS_I(inode)->extents_lock);
lock(&tree->tree_lock);
This is a false alarm as tree_lock mutex are different, one is
from sbi->cat_tree, and another is from sbi->ext_tree:
Thread A Thread B
- hfsplus_rename
- hfsplus_rename_cat
- hfs_find_init
- mutext_lock(cat_tree->tree_lock)
- hfsplus_setattr
- hfsplus_file_truncate
- mutex_lock(hip->extents_lock)
- hfs_find_init
- mutext_lock(ext_tree->tree_lock)
- hfs_bmap_reserve
- hfsplus_file_extend
- mutex_lock(hip->extents_lock)
So, let's call mutex_lock_nested for tree_lock mutex lock, and pass
correct lock class for it.
Fixes:
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| Kconfig | ||
| Makefile | ||
| attributes.c | ||
| bfind.c | ||
| bitmap.c | ||
| bnode.c | ||
| brec.c | ||
| btree.c | ||
| catalog.c | ||
| dir.c | ||
| extents.c | ||
| hfsplus_fs.h | ||
| hfsplus_raw.h | ||
| inode.c | ||
| ioctl.c | ||
| options.c | ||
| part_tbl.c | ||
| super.c | ||
| tables.c | ||
| unicode.c | ||
| wrapper.c | ||
| xattr.c | ||
| xattr.h | ||
| xattr_security.c | ||
| xattr_trusted.c | ||
| xattr_user.c | ||