* Re: [syzbot] [xfs?] possible deadlock in xfs_ilock_data_map_shared [not found] ` <20240426163228.GP360919@frogsfrogsfrogs> @ 2024-04-26 21:20 ` Dave Chinner 2024-04-26 23:17 ` Darrick J. Wong 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2024-04-26 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Darrick J. Wong Cc: syzbot, chandan.babu, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, syzkaller-bugs, linux-mm, Andrey Ryabinin [cc linux-mm@kvack.org] On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 09:32:28AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:46:28AM -0700, syzbot wrote: > > Hello, > > > > syzbot found the following issue on: > > > > HEAD commit: 977b1ef51866 Merge tag 'block-6.9-20240420' of git://git.k.. > > git tree: upstream > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=126497cd180000 > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=d239903bd07761e5 > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b7e8d799f0ab724876f9 > > 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/08d7b6e107aa/disk-977b1ef5.raw.xz > > vmlinux: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/9c5e543ffdcf/vmlinux-977b1ef5.xz > > kernel image: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/04a6d79d2f69/bzImage-977b1ef5.xz > > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit: > > Reported-by: syzbot+b7e8d799f0ab724876f9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > XFS (loop2): Ending clean mount > > ====================================================== > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > 6.9.0-rc4-syzkaller-00266-g977b1ef51866 #0 Not tainted > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > syz-executor.2/7915 is trying to acquire lock: > > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: might_alloc include/linux/sched/mm.h:312 [inline] > > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: slab_pre_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:3746 [inline] > > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3827 [inline] > > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kmalloc_trace+0x47/0x360 mm/slub.c:3992 > > > > but task is already holding lock: > > ffff888056da8118 (&xfs_dir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}, at: xfs_ilock_data_map_shared+0x4f/0x70 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:114 > > > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > > > -> #1 (&xfs_dir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}: > > lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754 > > down_write_nested+0x3d/0x50 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1695 > > xfs_reclaim_inode fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:945 [inline] > > xfs_icwalk_process_inode fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1631 [inline] > > xfs_icwalk_ag+0x120e/0x1ad0 fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1713 > > xfs_icwalk fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1762 [inline] > > xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x257/0x360 fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1011 > > super_cache_scan+0x411/0x4b0 fs/super.c:227 > > do_shrink_slab+0x707/0x1160 mm/shrinker.c:435 > > shrink_slab+0x1092/0x14d0 mm/shrinker.c:662 > > shrink_one+0x453/0x880 mm/vmscan.c:4774 > > shrink_many mm/vmscan.c:4835 [inline] > > lru_gen_shrink_node mm/vmscan.c:4935 [inline] > > shrink_node+0x3b17/0x4310 mm/vmscan.c:5894 > > kswapd_shrink_node mm/vmscan.c:6704 [inline] > > balance_pgdat mm/vmscan.c:6895 [inline] > > kswapd+0x1882/0x38a0 mm/vmscan.c:7164 > > kthread+0x2f2/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:388 > > ret_from_fork+0x4d/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147 > > ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244 > > > > -> #0 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: > > 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 > > __fs_reclaim_acquire mm/page_alloc.c:3698 [inline] > > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x88/0x140 mm/page_alloc.c:3712 > > might_alloc include/linux/sched/mm.h:312 [inline] > > slab_pre_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:3746 [inline] > > slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3827 [inline] > > kmalloc_trace+0x47/0x360 mm/slub.c:3992 > > kmalloc include/linux/slab.h:628 [inline] > > add_stack_record_to_list mm/page_owner.c:177 [inline] > > inc_stack_record_count mm/page_owner.c:219 [inline] > > __set_page_owner+0x561/0x810 mm/page_owner.c:334 > > set_page_owner include/linux/page_owner.h:32 [inline] > > post_alloc_hook+0x1ea/0x210 mm/page_alloc.c:1534 > > prep_new_page mm/page_alloc.c:1541 [inline] > > get_page_from_freelist+0x3410/0x35b0 mm/page_alloc.c:3317 > > __alloc_pages+0x256/0x6c0 mm/page_alloc.c:4575 > > __alloc_pages_bulk+0x729/0xd40 mm/page_alloc.c:4523 > > alloc_pages_bulk_array include/linux/gfp.h:202 [inline] > > xfs_buf_alloc_pages+0x1a7/0x860 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:398 > > xfs_buf_find_insert+0x19a/0x1540 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:650 > > xfs_buf_get_map+0x149c/0x1ae0 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:755 > > xfs_buf_read_map+0x111/0xa60 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:860 > > xfs_trans_read_buf_map+0x260/0xad0 fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c:289 > > xfs_da_read_buf+0x2b1/0x470 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c:2674 > > xfs_dir3_block_read+0x92/0x1a0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:145 > > xfs_dir2_block_lookup_int+0x109/0x7d0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:700 > > xfs_dir2_block_lookup+0x19a/0x630 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:650 > > xfs_dir_lookup+0x633/0xaf0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2.c:399 > > Hm. We've taken an ILOCK in xfs_dir_lookup, and now we're reading a > directory block. We don't have PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS set, nor do we pass > GFP_NOFS when allocating the xfs_buf pages. > > Nothing in this code path sets PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS explicitly, nor does it > create a xfs_trans_alloc_empty, which would set that. Prior to the > removal of kmem_alloc, I think we were much more aggressive about > GFP_NOFS usage. This isn't an XFS bug. The XFS code is correct - the callsite in the buffer cache is using GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOLOCKDEP explicitly to avoid these sorts of false positives. Please take a closer look at the stack trace - there's a second memory allocation taking place there way below the XFS memory allocation inside the page owner tracking code itself: static void add_stack_record_to_list(struct stack_record *stack_record, gfp_t gfp_mask) { unsigned long flags; struct stack *stack; /* Filter gfp_mask the same way stackdepot does, for consistency */ gfp_mask &= ~GFP_ZONEMASK; gfp_mask &= (GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL); gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOWARN; set_current_in_page_owner(); stack = kmalloc(sizeof(*stack), gfp_mask); if (!stack) { unset_current_in_page_owner(); return; } unset_current_in_page_owner(); ..... Look familiar? That exactly the same gfp mask filtering that the stackdepot code was doing that caused this issue with KASAN: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/000000000000fbf10e06164f3695@google.com/ Which was fixed with this patch: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240418141133.22950-1-ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com/ Essentially, we're now playing whack-a-mole with internal kernel debug code that doesn't honor __GFP_NOLOCKDEP.... MM-people: can you please do an audit of all the nested allocations that occur inside the public high level allocation API and ensure that they all obey __GFP_NOLOCKDEP so we don't have syzbot keep tripping over them one at a time? -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [syzbot] [xfs?] possible deadlock in xfs_ilock_data_map_shared 2024-04-26 21:20 ` [syzbot] [xfs?] possible deadlock in xfs_ilock_data_map_shared Dave Chinner @ 2024-04-26 23:17 ` Darrick J. Wong 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Darrick J. Wong @ 2024-04-26 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner Cc: syzbot, chandan.babu, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel, linux-xfs, syzkaller-bugs, linux-mm, Andrey Ryabinin On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 07:20:03AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > [cc linux-mm@kvack.org] > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 09:32:28AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:46:28AM -0700, syzbot wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > syzbot found the following issue on: > > > > > > HEAD commit: 977b1ef51866 Merge tag 'block-6.9-20240420' of git://git.k.. > > > git tree: upstream > > > console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=126497cd180000 > > > kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=d239903bd07761e5 > > > dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=b7e8d799f0ab724876f9 > > > 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/08d7b6e107aa/disk-977b1ef5.raw.xz > > > vmlinux: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/9c5e543ffdcf/vmlinux-977b1ef5.xz > > > kernel image: https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/04a6d79d2f69/bzImage-977b1ef5.xz > > > > > > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit: > > > Reported-by: syzbot+b7e8d799f0ab724876f9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > XFS (loop2): Ending clean mount > > > ====================================================== > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > > 6.9.0-rc4-syzkaller-00266-g977b1ef51866 #0 Not tainted > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > syz-executor.2/7915 is trying to acquire lock: > > > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: might_alloc include/linux/sched/mm.h:312 [inline] > > > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: slab_pre_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:3746 [inline] > > > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3827 [inline] > > > ffffffff8e42a800 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: kmalloc_trace+0x47/0x360 mm/slub.c:3992 > > > > > > but task is already holding lock: > > > ffff888056da8118 (&xfs_dir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}, at: xfs_ilock_data_map_shared+0x4f/0x70 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:114 > > > > > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > > > > > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > > > > > -> #1 (&xfs_dir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}: > > > lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x550 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5754 > > > down_write_nested+0x3d/0x50 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1695 > > > xfs_reclaim_inode fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:945 [inline] > > > xfs_icwalk_process_inode fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1631 [inline] > > > xfs_icwalk_ag+0x120e/0x1ad0 fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1713 > > > xfs_icwalk fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1762 [inline] > > > xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x257/0x360 fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c:1011 > > > super_cache_scan+0x411/0x4b0 fs/super.c:227 > > > do_shrink_slab+0x707/0x1160 mm/shrinker.c:435 > > > shrink_slab+0x1092/0x14d0 mm/shrinker.c:662 > > > shrink_one+0x453/0x880 mm/vmscan.c:4774 > > > shrink_many mm/vmscan.c:4835 [inline] > > > lru_gen_shrink_node mm/vmscan.c:4935 [inline] > > > shrink_node+0x3b17/0x4310 mm/vmscan.c:5894 > > > kswapd_shrink_node mm/vmscan.c:6704 [inline] > > > balance_pgdat mm/vmscan.c:6895 [inline] > > > kswapd+0x1882/0x38a0 mm/vmscan.c:7164 > > > kthread+0x2f2/0x390 kernel/kthread.c:388 > > > ret_from_fork+0x4d/0x80 arch/x86/kernel/process.c:147 > > > ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:244 > > > > > > -> #0 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: > > > 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 > > > __fs_reclaim_acquire mm/page_alloc.c:3698 [inline] > > > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x88/0x140 mm/page_alloc.c:3712 > > > might_alloc include/linux/sched/mm.h:312 [inline] > > > slab_pre_alloc_hook mm/slub.c:3746 [inline] > > > slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3827 [inline] > > > kmalloc_trace+0x47/0x360 mm/slub.c:3992 > > > kmalloc include/linux/slab.h:628 [inline] > > > add_stack_record_to_list mm/page_owner.c:177 [inline] > > > inc_stack_record_count mm/page_owner.c:219 [inline] > > > __set_page_owner+0x561/0x810 mm/page_owner.c:334 > > > set_page_owner include/linux/page_owner.h:32 [inline] > > > post_alloc_hook+0x1ea/0x210 mm/page_alloc.c:1534 > > > prep_new_page mm/page_alloc.c:1541 [inline] > > > get_page_from_freelist+0x3410/0x35b0 mm/page_alloc.c:3317 > > > __alloc_pages+0x256/0x6c0 mm/page_alloc.c:4575 > > > __alloc_pages_bulk+0x729/0xd40 mm/page_alloc.c:4523 > > > alloc_pages_bulk_array include/linux/gfp.h:202 [inline] > > > xfs_buf_alloc_pages+0x1a7/0x860 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:398 > > > xfs_buf_find_insert+0x19a/0x1540 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:650 > > > xfs_buf_get_map+0x149c/0x1ae0 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:755 > > > xfs_buf_read_map+0x111/0xa60 fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c:860 > > > xfs_trans_read_buf_map+0x260/0xad0 fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c:289 > > > xfs_da_read_buf+0x2b1/0x470 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_da_btree.c:2674 > > > xfs_dir3_block_read+0x92/0x1a0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:145 > > > xfs_dir2_block_lookup_int+0x109/0x7d0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:700 > > > xfs_dir2_block_lookup+0x19a/0x630 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2_block.c:650 > > > xfs_dir_lookup+0x633/0xaf0 fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dir2.c:399 > > > > Hm. We've taken an ILOCK in xfs_dir_lookup, and now we're reading a > > directory block. We don't have PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS set, nor do we pass > > GFP_NOFS when allocating the xfs_buf pages. > > > > Nothing in this code path sets PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS explicitly, nor does it > > create a xfs_trans_alloc_empty, which would set that. Prior to the > > removal of kmem_alloc, I think we were much more aggressive about > > GFP_NOFS usage. > > This isn't an XFS bug. The XFS code is correct - the callsite in the > buffer cache is using GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOLOCKDEP explicitly to > avoid these sorts of false positives. > > Please take a closer look at the stack trace - there's a second > memory allocation taking place there way below the XFS memory > allocation inside the page owner tracking code itself: > > static void add_stack_record_to_list(struct stack_record *stack_record, > gfp_t gfp_mask) > { > unsigned long flags; > struct stack *stack; > > /* Filter gfp_mask the same way stackdepot does, for consistency */ > gfp_mask &= ~GFP_ZONEMASK; > gfp_mask &= (GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL); > gfp_mask |= __GFP_NOWARN; > > set_current_in_page_owner(); > stack = kmalloc(sizeof(*stack), gfp_mask); > if (!stack) { > unset_current_in_page_owner(); > return; > } > unset_current_in_page_owner(); > ..... > > Look familiar? That exactly the same gfp mask filtering that the > stackdepot code was doing that caused this issue with KASAN: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/000000000000fbf10e06164f3695@google.com/ > > Which was fixed with this patch: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240418141133.22950-1-ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com/ > > Essentially, we're now playing whack-a-mole with internal kernel > debug code that doesn't honor __GFP_NOLOCKDEP.... > > MM-people: can you please do an audit of all the nested allocations > that occur inside the public high level allocation API and ensure > that they all obey __GFP_NOLOCKDEP so we don't have syzbot keep > tripping over them one at a time? Ah. Well. Given my clear inability to investigate these reports sufficiently, I will step back and let the experts handle them from now on. --D > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-26 23:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <00000000000028dd9a0616ecda61@google.com>
[not found] ` <20240426163228.GP360919@frogsfrogsfrogs>
2024-04-26 21:20 ` [syzbot] [xfs?] possible deadlock in xfs_ilock_data_map_shared Dave Chinner
2024-04-26 23:17 ` Darrick J. Wong
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox