From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com ([209.85.223.194]:47030 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1727796AbeIJO5e (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:57:34 -0400
Received: by mail-io0-f194.google.com with SMTP id y12-v6so120717ioj.13
        for <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 03:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegs72smmBfLdAwaOgQsLGsfdvWATv9BaNVvb0o4KdY3shA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00000000000024df4605757495a8@google.com> <CAJfpegsqsESUft-azOkirq9363nUXM=Sx4YMX6XVQxquEbjS7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACT4Y+bhGKrHk_BB4g9nDtRYD9VaaPyBTRxTo98r1BufAh6Z8A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJfpegs72smmBfLdAwaOgQsLGsfdvWATv9BaNVvb0o4KdY3shA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:03:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+aEv1M+HOdsY88coKBQ=PpAS8sC+o9mOfkRCOQ-uVagKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in free_ioctx_users
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+d86c4426a01f60feddc7@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        bcrl <bcrl@kvack.org>, linux-aio <linux-aio@kvack.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 8:41 PM, syzbot
>>> <syzbot+d86c4426a01f60feddc7@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> syzbot found the following crash on:
>>>>
>>>> HEAD commit:    f8f65382c98a Merge tag 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org..
>>>> git tree:       upstream
>>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=113260ae400000
>>>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=8f59875069d721b6
>>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d86c4426a01f60feddc7
>>>> compiler:       gcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180413 (experimental)
>>>> syz repro:      https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=120baa9e400000
>>>> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=13979cbe400000
>>>>
>>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
>>>> Reported-by: syzbot+d86c4426a01f60feddc7@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>>>
>>>> random: sshd: uninitialized urandom read (32 bytes read)
>>>> random: sshd: uninitialized urandom read (32 bytes read)
>>>> random: sshd: uninitialized urandom read (32 bytes read)
>>>>
>>>> ========================================================
>>>> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
>>>> 4.19.0-rc2+ #229 Not tainted
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>> swapper/0/0 just changed the state of lock:
>>>> 00000000c02bddef (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: spin_lock_irq
>>>> include/linux/spinlock.h:354 [inline]
>>>> 00000000c02bddef (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at:
>>>> free_ioctx_users+0xbc/0x710 fs/aio.c:603
>>>> but this lock took another, SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
>>>>  (&fiq->waitq){+.+.}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>>>  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>>>>
>>>>        CPU0                    CPU1
>>>>        ----                    ----
>>>>   lock(&fiq->waitq);
>>>>                                local_irq_disable();
>>>>                                lock(&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock);
>>>>                                lock(&fiq->waitq);
>>>>   <Interrupt>
>>>>     lock(&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock);
>>>
>>> Fuse device doesn't support AIO ops.  So false positive, AFAICS.
>>
>> Hi Miklos,
>>
>> We still need to annotate this. How?
>
> Good question.
>
> Isn't lockdep assuming too much here?  It hasn't shown that that
> ctx_lock instance was actually called from interrupt context, has it?

+lockdep maintainers for lockdep false positive and how to annotate it

Full reports are available here:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=d86c4426a01f60feddc7