Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2023 19:57:24 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To:     syzbot <syzbot+e441aeeb422763cc5511@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, ericvh@kernel.org,
        kuba@kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux_oss@crudebyte.com,
        lucho@ionkov.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, v9fs@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [net?] [v9fs?] KCSAN: data-race in p9_fd_create /
 p9_fd_create (2)
Message-ID: <ZO3PFO_OpNfBW7bd@codewreck.org>
References: <000000000000d26ff606040c9719@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <000000000000d26ff606040c9719@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

syzbot wrote on Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 02:39:53AM -0700:
> ==================================================================
> BUG: KCSAN: data-race in p9_fd_create / p9_fd_create
> 
> read-write to 0xffff888130fb3d48 of 4 bytes by task 15599 on cpu 0:
>  p9_fd_open net/9p/trans_fd.c:842 [inline]
>  p9_fd_create+0x210/0x250 net/9p/trans_fd.c:1092
>  p9_client_create+0x595/0xa70 net/9p/client.c:1010
>  v9fs_session_init+0xf9/0xd90 fs/9p/v9fs.c:410
>  v9fs_mount+0x69/0x630 fs/9p/vfs_super.c:123
>  legacy_get_tree+0x74/0xd0 fs/fs_context.c:611
>  vfs_get_tree+0x51/0x190 fs/super.c:1519
>  do_new_mount+0x203/0x660 fs/namespace.c:3335
>  path_mount+0x496/0xb30 fs/namespace.c:3662
>  do_mount fs/namespace.c:3675 [inline]
>  __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:3884 [inline]
>  __se_sys_mount+0x27f/0x2d0 fs/namespace.c:3861
>  __x64_sys_mount+0x67/0x80 fs/namespace.c:3861
>  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
>  do_syscall_64+0x41/0xc0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> 
> read-write to 0xffff888130fb3d48 of 4 bytes by task 15563 on cpu 1:
>  p9_fd_open net/9p/trans_fd.c:842 [inline]
>  p9_fd_create+0x210/0x250 net/9p/trans_fd.c:1092
>  p9_client_create+0x595/0xa70 net/9p/client.c:1010
>  v9fs_session_init+0xf9/0xd90 fs/9p/v9fs.c:410
>  v9fs_mount+0x69/0x630 fs/9p/vfs_super.c:123
>  legacy_get_tree+0x74/0xd0 fs/fs_context.c:611
>  vfs_get_tree+0x51/0x190 fs/super.c:1519
>  do_new_mount+0x203/0x660 fs/namespace.c:3335
>  path_mount+0x496/0xb30 fs/namespace.c:3662
>  do_mount fs/namespace.c:3675 [inline]
>  __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:3884 [inline]
>  __se_sys_mount+0x27f/0x2d0 fs/namespace.c:3861
>  __x64_sys_mount+0x67/0x80 fs/namespace.c:3861
>  do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
>  do_syscall_64+0x41/0xc0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
>  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> 
> value changed: 0x00008002 -> 0x00008802

Yes well that doesn't seem too hard to hit, both threads are just
setting O_NONBLOCK to the same fd in parallel (0x800 is 04000,
O_NONBLOCK)

I'm not quite sure why that'd be a problem; and I'm also pretty sure
that wouldn't work anyway (9p has no muxing or anything that'd allow
sharing the same fd between multiple mounts)

Can this be flagged "don't care" ?

-- 
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus