Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-133797-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 05:09:23 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+9a5b0ced8b1bfb238b56@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
	tj@kernel.org, valesini@yandex-team.ru,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [kernfs?] possible deadlock in kernfs_fop_llseek
Message-ID: <20240406040923.GX538574@ZenIV>
References: <00000000000098f75506153551a1@google.com>
 <0000000000002f2066061539e54b@google.com>
 <CAOQ4uxiS5X19OT2MTo_LnLAx2VL9oA1zBSpbuiWMNy_AyGLDrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240404081122.GQ538574@ZenIV>
 <20240404082110.GR538574@ZenIV>
 <CAOQ4uximHfK78KFabJA3Hf4R0En6-GfJ3eF96Lzmc94PGuGayA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uximHfK78KFabJA3Hf4R0En6-GfJ3eF96Lzmc94PGuGayA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:33:40PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:

> We do not (anymore) lock ovl inode in ovl_llseek(), see:
> b1f9d3858f72 ovl: use ovl_inode_lock in ovl_llseek()
> but ovl inode is held in operations (e.g. ovl_rename)
> which trigger copy up and call vfs_llseek() on the lower file.

OK, but why do we bother with ovl_inode_lock() there?
Note that serialization on struct file level is provided
on syscall level - see call of fdget_pos() in there.
IOW, which object are you protecting?  If it's struct file
passed your way, you should already have the serialization.
If it's underlying file on disk, that's up to vfs_llseek().
Exclusion with copyup by a different operation?

I'm not saying it's wrong - it's just that the thing is
tricky enough, so some clarification might be a good idea.