From: Julian Sun sunjunchao2870@gmail.com

stable inclusion from stable-v4.19.322 commit 6cc13a80a26e6b48f78c725c01b91987d61563ef category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IB6P4H

Reference: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?i...

--------------------------------

commit 88b1afbf0f6b221f6c5bb66cc80cd3b38d696687 upstream.

Hi, all

Recently I noticed a bug[1] in btrfs, after digged it into and I believe it'a race in vfs.

Let's assume there's a inode (ie ino 261) with i_count 1 is called by iput(), and there's a concurrent thread calling generic_shutdown_super().

cpu0: cpu1: iput() // i_count is 1 ->spin_lock(inode) ->dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() generic_shutdown_super() ->__inode_add_lru() ->evict_inodes() // cause some reason[2] ->if (atomic_read(inode->i_count)) continue; // return before // inode 261 passed the above check // list_lru_add_obj() // and then schedule out ->spin_unlock() // note here: the inode 261 // was still at sb list and hash list, // and I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE was not been set

btrfs_iget() // after some function calls ->find_inode() // found the above inode 261 ->spin_lock(inode) // check I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE // and passed ->__iget() ->spin_unlock(inode) // schedule back ->spin_lock(inode) // check (I_NEW|I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE) flags, // passed and set I_FREEING iput() ->spin_unlock(inode) ->spin_lock(inode) ->evict() // dec i_count to 0 ->iput_final() ->spin_unlock() ->evict()

Now, we have two threads simultaneously evicting the same inode, which may trigger the BUG(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR) statement both within clear_inode() and iput().

To fix the bug, recheck the inode->i_count after holding i_lock. Because in the most scenarios, the first check is valid, and the overhead of spin_lock() can be reduced.

If there is any misunderstanding, please let me know, thanks.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/000000000000eabe1d0619c48986@google.com/ [2]: The reason might be 1. SB_ACTIVE was removed or 2. mapping_shrinkable() return false when I reproduced the bug.

Reported-by: syzbot+67ba3c42bcbb4665d3ad@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=67ba3c42bcbb4665d3ad CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 63997e98a3be ("split invalidate_inodes()") Signed-off-by: Julian Sun sunjunchao2870@gmail.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240823130730.658881-1-sunjunchao2870@gmail.com Reviewed-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner brauner@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Signed-off-by: Zizhi Wo wozizhi@huawei.com --- fs/inode.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c index ae9d7b84caf3..399d79043a39 100644 --- a/fs/inode.c +++ b/fs/inode.c @@ -616,6 +616,10 @@ void evict_inodes(struct super_block *sb) continue;

spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); + if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count)) { + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); + continue; + } if (inode->i_state & (I_NEW | I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE)) { spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); continue;