Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-133334-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:23:33 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: syzbot <syzbot+9a5b0ced8b1bfb238b56@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc: amir73il@gmail.com, brauner@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	hch@lst.de, jack@suse.cz, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu,
	syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, tj@kernel.org,
	valesini@yandex-team.ru
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in kernfs_fop_llseek
Message-ID: <20240405162333.GU538574@ZenIV>
References: <CAOQ4uxhm5m9CvX0y2RcJGuP=vryZLp9M+tS6vH1o_9BGUqxrvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <00000000000039026a06155b3a12@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <00000000000039026a06155b3a12@google.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 08:37:03AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> syzbot tried to test the proposed patch but the build/boot failed:

WTF?  The patch is

diff --git a/fs/kernfs/file.c b/fs/kernfs/file.c
index e9df2f87072c6..8502ef68459b9 100644
--- a/fs/kernfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/kernfs/file.c
@@ -636,11 +636,18 @@ static int kernfs_fop_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 	 * each file a separate locking class.  Let's differentiate on
 	 * whether the file has mmap or not for now.
 	 *
-	 * Both paths of the branch look the same.  They're supposed to
+	 * For similar reasons, writable and readonly files are given different
+	 * lockdep key, because the writable file /sys/power/resume may call vfs
+	 * lookup helpers for arbitrary paths and readonly files can be read by
+	 * overlayfs from vfs helpers when sysfs is a lower layer of overalyfs.
+	 *
+	 * All three cases look the same.  They're supposed to
 	 * look that way and give @of->mutex different static lockdep keys.
 	 */
 	if (has_mmap)
 		mutex_init(&of->mutex);
+	else if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)
+		mutex_init(&of->mutex);
 	else
 		mutex_init(&of->mutex);
 
How could it possibly trigger boot failure?  Test the parent, perhaps?