March 2024 - Linux-stable-mirror

by Ard Biesheuvel

Please backport b3810c5a2cc4a6665f7a65bed5393c75ce3f3aa2 x86/efistub: Clear decompressor BSS in native EFI entrypoint to stable kernels v6.1 and newer. Thanks, Ard.

1 year, 3 months

2
1
0 0

backport 'regmap: Add missing map->bus check'

by Mahmoud Adam

Hi, This commit needs to be backported to 5.4, 5.10, 5.15, it fixes possible null deference from the following commit 'regmap: Add bulk read/write callbacks into regmap_config' which was backported to these kernels in the latest released versions (v5.15.152, v5.10.213, v5.4.272). Commit 5c422f0b970d287efa864b8390a02face404db5d upstream. Thanks, MNAdam

1 year, 3 months

2
1
0 0

[PATCH] qcom: clk: clk-alpha-pll: fix rate setting for Stromer PLLs

by Gabor Juhos

The clk_alpha_pll_stromer_set_rate() function writes inproper values into the ALPHA_VAL{,_U} registers which results in wrong clock rates when the alpha value is used. The broken behaviour can be seen on IPQ5018 for example, when dynamic scaling sets the CPU frequency to 800000 KHz. In this case the CPU cores are running only at 792031 KHz: # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq 800000 # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq 792031 This happens because the function ignores the fact that the alpha value calculated by the alpha_pll_round_rate() function is only 32 bits wide which must be extended to 40 bits if it is used on a hardware which supports 40 bits wide values. Extend the clk_alpha_pll_stromer_set_rate() function to convert the alpha value to 40 bits before wrinting that into the registers in order to ensure that the hardware really uses the requested rate. After the change the CPU frequency is correct: # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq 800000 # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq 800000 Cc: stable(a)vger.kernel.org Fixes: e47a4f55f240 ("clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: Add support for Stromer PLLs") Signed-off-by: Gabor Juhos <j4g8y7(a)gmail.com> --- Based on v6.8. --- Based on v6.8. Depends on the following patch: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240315-apss-ipq-pll-ipq5018-hang-v2-1-6fe30ada2… --- drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c index 05898d2a8b22c..4f5dba44411f6 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-alpha-pll.c @@ -2474,6 +2474,10 @@ static int clk_alpha_pll_stromer_set_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, rate = alpha_pll_round_rate(rate, prate, &l, &a, ALPHA_REG_BITWIDTH); regmap_write(pll->clkr.regmap, PLL_L_VAL(pll), l); + + if (ALPHA_REG_BITWIDTH > ALPHA_BITWIDTH) + a <<= ALPHA_REG_BITWIDTH - ALPHA_BITWIDTH; + regmap_write(pll->clkr.regmap, PLL_ALPHA_VAL(pll), a); regmap_write(pll->clkr.regmap, PLL_ALPHA_VAL_U(pll), a >> ALPHA_BITWIDTH); --- base-commit: 97483adf4c6181df2f3d8fe7c2aa057443298080 change-id: 20240324-alpha-pll-fix-stromer-set-rate-472376e624f0 Best regards, -- Gabor Juhos <j4g8y7(a)gmail.com>

1 year, 3 months

1
0
0 0

[PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 1/2] sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held

by Sasha Levin

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> [ Upstream commit f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e ] syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock). Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+69b40dc5fd40f32c199f(a)syzkaller.appspotmail.com> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=69b40dc5fd40f32c199f Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/0d195f93-a22a-49a2-0020-103534d6f7f6@I-love.SAKUR… Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org> --- fs/sysv/itree.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/sysv/itree.c b/fs/sysv/itree.c index e3d1673b8ec97..ef9bcfeec21ad 100644 --- a/fs/sysv/itree.c +++ b/fs/sysv/itree.c @@ -82,9 +82,6 @@ static inline sysv_zone_t *block_end(struct buffer_head *bh) return (sysv_zone_t*)((char*)bh->b_data + bh->b_size); } -/* - * Requires read_lock(&pointers_lock) or write_lock(&pointers_lock) - */ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, int depth, int offsets[], @@ -104,15 +101,18 @@ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, bh = sb_bread(sb, block); if (!bh) goto failure; + read_lock(&pointers_lock); if (!verify_chain(chain, p)) goto changed; add_chain(++p, bh, (sysv_zone_t*)bh->b_data + *++offsets); + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); if (!p->key) goto no_block; } return NULL; changed: + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); brelse(bh); *err = -EAGAIN; goto no_block; @@ -218,9 +218,7 @@ static int get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, struct buffer_head *b goto out; reread: - read_lock(&pointers_lock); partial = get_branch(inode, depth, offsets, chain, &err); - read_unlock(&pointers_lock); /* Simplest case - block found, no allocation needed */ if (!partial) { @@ -290,9 +288,9 @@ static Indirect *find_shared(struct inode *inode, *top = 0; for (k = depth; k > 1 && !offsets[k-1]; k--) ; + partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); write_lock(&pointers_lock); - partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); if (!partial) partial = chain + k-1; /* -- 2.43.0

1 year, 3 months

1
1
0 0

[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.4 1/3] sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held

by Sasha Levin

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> [ Upstream commit f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e ] syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock). Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+69b40dc5fd40f32c199f(a)syzkaller.appspotmail.com> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=69b40dc5fd40f32c199f Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/0d195f93-a22a-49a2-0020-103534d6f7f6@I-love.SAKUR… Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org> --- fs/sysv/itree.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/sysv/itree.c b/fs/sysv/itree.c index e3d1673b8ec97..ef9bcfeec21ad 100644 --- a/fs/sysv/itree.c +++ b/fs/sysv/itree.c @@ -82,9 +82,6 @@ static inline sysv_zone_t *block_end(struct buffer_head *bh) return (sysv_zone_t*)((char*)bh->b_data + bh->b_size); } -/* - * Requires read_lock(&pointers_lock) or write_lock(&pointers_lock) - */ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, int depth, int offsets[], @@ -104,15 +101,18 @@ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, bh = sb_bread(sb, block); if (!bh) goto failure; + read_lock(&pointers_lock); if (!verify_chain(chain, p)) goto changed; add_chain(++p, bh, (sysv_zone_t*)bh->b_data + *++offsets); + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); if (!p->key) goto no_block; } return NULL; changed: + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); brelse(bh); *err = -EAGAIN; goto no_block; @@ -218,9 +218,7 @@ static int get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, struct buffer_head *b goto out; reread: - read_lock(&pointers_lock); partial = get_branch(inode, depth, offsets, chain, &err); - read_unlock(&pointers_lock); /* Simplest case - block found, no allocation needed */ if (!partial) { @@ -290,9 +288,9 @@ static Indirect *find_shared(struct inode *inode, *top = 0; for (k = depth; k > 1 && !offsets[k-1]; k--) ; + partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); write_lock(&pointers_lock); - partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); if (!partial) partial = chain + k-1; /* -- 2.43.0

1 year, 3 months

1
2
0 0

[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.10 1/2] sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held

by Sasha Levin

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> [ Upstream commit f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e ] syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock). Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+69b40dc5fd40f32c199f(a)syzkaller.appspotmail.com> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=69b40dc5fd40f32c199f Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/0d195f93-a22a-49a2-0020-103534d6f7f6@I-love.SAKUR… Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org> --- fs/sysv/itree.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/sysv/itree.c b/fs/sysv/itree.c index e3d1673b8ec97..ef9bcfeec21ad 100644 --- a/fs/sysv/itree.c +++ b/fs/sysv/itree.c @@ -82,9 +82,6 @@ static inline sysv_zone_t *block_end(struct buffer_head *bh) return (sysv_zone_t*)((char*)bh->b_data + bh->b_size); } -/* - * Requires read_lock(&pointers_lock) or write_lock(&pointers_lock) - */ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, int depth, int offsets[], @@ -104,15 +101,18 @@ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, bh = sb_bread(sb, block); if (!bh) goto failure; + read_lock(&pointers_lock); if (!verify_chain(chain, p)) goto changed; add_chain(++p, bh, (sysv_zone_t*)bh->b_data + *++offsets); + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); if (!p->key) goto no_block; } return NULL; changed: + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); brelse(bh); *err = -EAGAIN; goto no_block; @@ -218,9 +218,7 @@ static int get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, struct buffer_head *b goto out; reread: - read_lock(&pointers_lock); partial = get_branch(inode, depth, offsets, chain, &err); - read_unlock(&pointers_lock); /* Simplest case - block found, no allocation needed */ if (!partial) { @@ -290,9 +288,9 @@ static Indirect *find_shared(struct inode *inode, *top = 0; for (k = depth; k > 1 && !offsets[k-1]; k--) ; + partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); write_lock(&pointers_lock); - partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); if (!partial) partial = chain + k-1; /* -- 2.43.0

1 year, 3 months

1
1
0 0

[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.15 1/2] sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held

by Sasha Levin

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> [ Upstream commit f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e ] syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock). Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+69b40dc5fd40f32c199f(a)syzkaller.appspotmail.com> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=69b40dc5fd40f32c199f Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/0d195f93-a22a-49a2-0020-103534d6f7f6@I-love.SAKUR… Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org> --- fs/sysv/itree.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/sysv/itree.c b/fs/sysv/itree.c index 1e9c520411f84..5800cb065ca58 100644 --- a/fs/sysv/itree.c +++ b/fs/sysv/itree.c @@ -82,9 +82,6 @@ static inline sysv_zone_t *block_end(struct buffer_head *bh) return (sysv_zone_t*)((char*)bh->b_data + bh->b_size); } -/* - * Requires read_lock(&pointers_lock) or write_lock(&pointers_lock) - */ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, int depth, int offsets[], @@ -104,15 +101,18 @@ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, bh = sb_bread(sb, block); if (!bh) goto failure; + read_lock(&pointers_lock); if (!verify_chain(chain, p)) goto changed; add_chain(++p, bh, (sysv_zone_t*)bh->b_data + *++offsets); + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); if (!p->key) goto no_block; } return NULL; changed: + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); brelse(bh); *err = -EAGAIN; goto no_block; @@ -218,9 +218,7 @@ static int get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, struct buffer_head *b goto out; reread: - read_lock(&pointers_lock); partial = get_branch(inode, depth, offsets, chain, &err); - read_unlock(&pointers_lock); /* Simplest case - block found, no allocation needed */ if (!partial) { @@ -290,9 +288,9 @@ static Indirect *find_shared(struct inode *inode, *top = 0; for (k = depth; k > 1 && !offsets[k-1]; k--) ; + partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); write_lock(&pointers_lock); - partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); if (!partial) partial = chain + k-1; /* -- 2.43.0

1 year, 3 months

1
1
0 0

[PATCH AUTOSEL 6.1 1/7] sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held

by Sasha Levin

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> [ Upstream commit f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e ] syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock). Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+69b40dc5fd40f32c199f(a)syzkaller.appspotmail.com> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=69b40dc5fd40f32c199f Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/0d195f93-a22a-49a2-0020-103534d6f7f6@I-love.SAKUR… Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org> --- fs/sysv/itree.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/sysv/itree.c b/fs/sysv/itree.c index 9925cfe571595..17c7d76770a0a 100644 --- a/fs/sysv/itree.c +++ b/fs/sysv/itree.c @@ -82,9 +82,6 @@ static inline sysv_zone_t *block_end(struct buffer_head *bh) return (sysv_zone_t*)((char*)bh->b_data + bh->b_size); } -/* - * Requires read_lock(&pointers_lock) or write_lock(&pointers_lock) - */ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, int depth, int offsets[], @@ -104,15 +101,18 @@ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, bh = sb_bread(sb, block); if (!bh) goto failure; + read_lock(&pointers_lock); if (!verify_chain(chain, p)) goto changed; add_chain(++p, bh, (sysv_zone_t*)bh->b_data + *++offsets); + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); if (!p->key) goto no_block; } return NULL; changed: + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); brelse(bh); *err = -EAGAIN; goto no_block; @@ -218,9 +218,7 @@ static int get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, struct buffer_head *b goto out; reread: - read_lock(&pointers_lock); partial = get_branch(inode, depth, offsets, chain, &err); - read_unlock(&pointers_lock); /* Simplest case - block found, no allocation needed */ if (!partial) { @@ -290,9 +288,9 @@ static Indirect *find_shared(struct inode *inode, *top = 0; for (k = depth; k > 1 && !offsets[k-1]; k--) ; + partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); write_lock(&pointers_lock); - partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); if (!partial) partial = chain + k-1; /* -- 2.43.0

1 year, 3 months

1
6
0 0

[PATCH AUTOSEL 6.6 01/11] sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held

by Sasha Levin

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> [ Upstream commit f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e ] syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock). Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+69b40dc5fd40f32c199f(a)syzkaller.appspotmail.com> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=69b40dc5fd40f32c199f Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/0d195f93-a22a-49a2-0020-103534d6f7f6@I-love.SAKUR… Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org> --- fs/sysv/itree.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/sysv/itree.c b/fs/sysv/itree.c index edb94e55de8e5..7b2a07a31e463 100644 --- a/fs/sysv/itree.c +++ b/fs/sysv/itree.c @@ -82,9 +82,6 @@ static inline sysv_zone_t *block_end(struct buffer_head *bh) return (sysv_zone_t*)((char*)bh->b_data + bh->b_size); } -/* - * Requires read_lock(&pointers_lock) or write_lock(&pointers_lock) - */ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, int depth, int offsets[], @@ -104,15 +101,18 @@ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, bh = sb_bread(sb, block); if (!bh) goto failure; + read_lock(&pointers_lock); if (!verify_chain(chain, p)) goto changed; add_chain(++p, bh, (sysv_zone_t*)bh->b_data + *++offsets); + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); if (!p->key) goto no_block; } return NULL; changed: + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); brelse(bh); *err = -EAGAIN; goto no_block; @@ -218,9 +218,7 @@ static int get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, struct buffer_head *b goto out; reread: - read_lock(&pointers_lock); partial = get_branch(inode, depth, offsets, chain, &err); - read_unlock(&pointers_lock); /* Simplest case - block found, no allocation needed */ if (!partial) { @@ -290,9 +288,9 @@ static Indirect *find_shared(struct inode *inode, *top = 0; for (k = depth; k > 1 && !offsets[k-1]; k--) ; + partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); write_lock(&pointers_lock); - partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); if (!partial) partial = chain + k-1; /* -- 2.43.0

1 year, 3 months

1
10
0 0

[PATCH AUTOSEL 6.7 01/11] sysv: don't call sb_bread() with pointers_lock held

by Sasha Levin

From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> [ Upstream commit f123dc86388cb669c3d6322702dc441abc35c31e ] syzbot is reporting sleep in atomic context in SysV filesystem [1], for sb_bread() is called with rw_spinlock held. A "write_lock(&pointers_lock) => read_lock(&pointers_lock) deadlock" bug and a "sb_bread() with write_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug were introduced by "Replace BKL for chain locking with sysvfs-private rwlock" in Linux 2.5.12. Then, "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" in Linux 2.6.8 fixed the former bug by moving pointers_lock lock to the callers, but instead introduced a "sb_bread() with read_lock(&pointers_lock)" bug (which made this problem easier to hit). Al Viro suggested that why not to do like get_branch()/get_block()/ find_shared() in Minix filesystem does. And doing like that is almost a revert of "[PATCH] err1-40: sysvfs locking fix" except that get_branch() from with find_shared() is called without write_lock(&pointers_lock). Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+69b40dc5fd40f32c199f(a)syzkaller.appspotmail.com> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=69b40dc5fd40f32c199f Suggested-by: Al Viro <viro(a)zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel(a)I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/0d195f93-a22a-49a2-0020-103534d6f7f6@I-love.SAKUR… Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner(a)kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal(a)kernel.org> --- fs/sysv/itree.c | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/sysv/itree.c b/fs/sysv/itree.c index 725981474e5f9..ff22f39710106 100644 --- a/fs/sysv/itree.c +++ b/fs/sysv/itree.c @@ -82,9 +82,6 @@ static inline sysv_zone_t *block_end(struct buffer_head *bh) return (sysv_zone_t*)((char*)bh->b_data + bh->b_size); } -/* - * Requires read_lock(&pointers_lock) or write_lock(&pointers_lock) - */ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, int depth, int offsets[], @@ -104,15 +101,18 @@ static Indirect *get_branch(struct inode *inode, bh = sb_bread(sb, block); if (!bh) goto failure; + read_lock(&pointers_lock); if (!verify_chain(chain, p)) goto changed; add_chain(++p, bh, (sysv_zone_t*)bh->b_data + *++offsets); + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); if (!p->key) goto no_block; } return NULL; changed: + read_unlock(&pointers_lock); brelse(bh); *err = -EAGAIN; goto no_block; @@ -218,9 +218,7 @@ static int get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, struct buffer_head *b goto out; reread: - read_lock(&pointers_lock); partial = get_branch(inode, depth, offsets, chain, &err); - read_unlock(&pointers_lock); /* Simplest case - block found, no allocation needed */ if (!partial) { @@ -290,9 +288,9 @@ static Indirect *find_shared(struct inode *inode, *top = 0; for (k = depth; k > 1 && !offsets[k-1]; k--) ; + partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); write_lock(&pointers_lock); - partial = get_branch(inode, k, offsets, chain, &err); if (!partial) partial = chain + k-1; /* -- 2.43.0

1 year, 3 months

1
10
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Linux-stable-mirror March 2024