Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+or6oK--zi6uDUipHY42wf79aVHo3WuZXXUvzR-7Atod4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180216190201.59572-1-joelaf@google.com> <20180222134832.GA1400@kroah.com>
 <CAJWu+or6oK--zi6uDUipHY42wf79aVHo3WuZXXUvzR-7Atod4A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:38:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD0t5oNTMaHDAHoij3GhyET5AYGWYCyyT6FZD7wRQoq7t5FrcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: android: ashmem: Fix lockdep issue during llseek
To:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Arve Hjonnevag <arve@android.com>,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Ack. I confirmed that the syzbot could not reproduce the issue with this patch.

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
> (reposting in plain text, sorry for the previous HTML email, I should
> have not posted from the Phone)
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:02:01AM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> ashmem_mutex create a chain of dependencies like so:
>>>
>>> (1)
>>> mmap syscall ->
>>>   mmap_sem ->  (acquired)
>>>   ashmem_mmap
>>>   ashmem_mutex (try to acquire)
>>>   (block)
>>>
>>> (2)
>>> llseek syscall ->
>>>   ashmem_llseek ->
>>>   ashmem_mutex ->  (acquired)
>>>   inode_lock ->
>>>   inode->i_rwsem (try to acquire)
>>>   (block)
>>>
>>> (3)
>>> getdents ->
>>>   iterate_dir ->
>>>   inode_lock ->
>>>   inode->i_rwsem   (acquired)
>>>   copy_to_user ->
>>>   mmap_sem         (try to acquire)
>>>
>>> There is a lock ordering created between mmap_sem and inode->i_rwsem
>>> causing a lockdep splat [2] during a syzcaller test, this patch fixes
>>> the issue by unlocking the mutex earlier. Functionally that's Ok since
>>> we don't need to protect vfs_llseek.
>>>
>>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10185031/
>>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/10/48
>>>
>>> Cc: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>
>>> Cc: Arve Hjonnevag <arve@android.com>
>>> Cc: Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>
>>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>> Reported-by: syzbot+8ec30bb7bf1a981a2012@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes since first version:
>>> Don't relock after vfs call since its not needed. Only reason we lock is
>>> to protect races with asma->file.
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10185031/
>>
>> I'd like some acks from others before I take this patch.
>
> GregH, Todd, could you provide Acks?
>
>>
>> Joel, did the original reporter say this patch solved their issue or
>> not?  For some reason I didn't think it worked properly...
>
> That's a different but similar issue:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10202127/. That was related to
> RECLAIM_FS lockdep recursion. That was posted as an RFC unlike this
> one, and its still being investigated since Miles reported that the
> lockdep inode annotation doesn't fix the issue.
>
> This one on the other hand has a straightforward fix, and was verified
> by the syzbot.
>
> I can see why its easy to confuse the two issues.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Joel