On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM, syzbot
>> <syzbot+3f7b29af1baa9d0a55be@syzkaller.appspotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> syzbot found the following crash on:
>>>
>>> HEAD commit:    c25c74b7476e Merge tag 'trace-v4.18-rc3-2' of git://git.ke..
>>> git tree:       upstream
>>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=177bcec2400000
>>> kernel config:  https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=25856fac4e580aa7
>>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=3f7b29af1baa9d0a55be
>>> compiler:       gcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180413 (experimental)
>>> syzkaller repro:https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=13aa7678400000
>>> C reproducer:   https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=17492678400000
>>>
>>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+3f7b29af1baa9d0a55be@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: lock held when returning to user space!
>>> 4.18.0-rc4+ #143 Not tainted
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> syz-executor012/4539 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
>>> 1 lock held by syz-executor012/4539:
>>>  #0: (____ptrval____) (&fi->mutex){+.+.}, at: fuse_lock_inode+0xaf/0xe0
>>> fs/fuse/inode.c:363
>>
>> False positive.
>>
>> fi->mutex is definitely not held by the acquiring task when returning
>> to userspace.  Maybe syzkaller is confused by the fact that there are
>> several interdependent tasks involved with fuse:  the one calling into
>> fuse by doing something (looking up ./file0/file0) and the one that
>> reads the fuse device (returning with the LOOKUP request for "file0").
>> The second one will return with that lock held, but it's not the one
>> that acquired it, so there's no bug at all here.
>
> Hi Miklos,
>
> syzkaller is unrelated here. That's what kernel self-detects and
> prints. So either way there is something to fix in kernel here: either
> fuse or lockdep.
>
> +Alistair did some analysis offline, hope you don't mind if I repost
> your description:
> ===
> Just from reading the code, I think I can see how this happens. Fuse
> is wrapping its inode mutex with a check for "parallel_dirops", which
> is set up in process_init_reply(). The FUSE_PARALLEL_DIROPS appears to
> always be set, in fuse_send_init(), but its initial state is to be
> disabled. So if the mutex gets taken, and it'll never be unlocked if
> the initial command is flushed by fuse_readdir()'s use of
> fuse_lock_inode().
> ===

Ah, indeed.  Fix attached.

Thanks,
Miklos