drivers/block/brd.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
syzbot is reporting that brd_insert_page() is calling
__xa_cmpxchg(__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) with spinlock and RCU lock held.
Change __xa_cmpxchg() to use GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN, for it is likely
that __xa_cmpxchg() succeeds because of preceding alloc_page().
Fixes: bbcacab2e8ee ("brd: avoid extra xarray lookups on first write")
Reported-by: syzbot+ea4c8fd177a47338881a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ea4c8fd177a47338881a
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
---
drivers/block/brd.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/brd.c b/drivers/block/brd.c
index b1be6c510372..ed3eb931750c 100644
--- a/drivers/block/brd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/brd.c
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static struct page *brd_insert_page(struct brd_device *brd, sector_t sector,
xa_lock(&brd->brd_pages);
ret = __xa_cmpxchg(&brd->brd_pages, sector >> PAGE_SECTORS_SHIFT, NULL,
- page, gfp);
+ page, GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
if (ret) {
xa_unlock(&brd->brd_pages);
__free_page(page);
--
2.50.0
I think the correct fix is "brd: fix leeping function called from invalid context in brd_insert_page()" from Yu Kuai. Please take a look at that and double check it, though.
On 2025/06/28 17:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > syzbot is reporting that brd_insert_page() is calling > __xa_cmpxchg(__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) with spinlock and RCU lock held. Hmm. Holding spinlock itself is OK because xa_lock() is a requirement. > Change __xa_cmpxchg() to use GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN, for it is likely > that __xa_cmpxchg() succeeds because of preceding alloc_page(). Since this gfp flag is for allocating index array, it should use __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM if possible. Then, deferring RCU lock if possible makes sense. Then, I wonder what this RCU lock is protecting...
On 2025/06/28 18:39, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2025/06/28 17:36, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> syzbot is reporting that brd_insert_page() is calling >> __xa_cmpxchg(__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM) with spinlock and RCU lock held. > > Hmm. Holding spinlock itself is OK because xa_lock() is a requirement. > >> Change __xa_cmpxchg() to use GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN, for it is likely >> that __xa_cmpxchg() succeeds because of preceding alloc_page(). > > Since this gfp flag is for allocating index array, it should use > __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM if possible. Then, deferring RCU lock if possible > makes sense. Then, I wonder what this RCU lock is protecting... > OK. I assume that the "concurrent discard" in https://lkml.kernel.org/20250628011459.832760-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com means brd_do_discard(). Calling rcu_read_lock() from brd_insert_page() before xa_unlock() is called prevents __free_page() from brd_free_one_page() from call_rcu() from brd_do_discard(), even if the page allocated by alloc_page() and stored into brd->brd_pages by __xa_cmpxchg() is removed by __xa_erase() before brd_rw_bvec() calls memcpy_{to,from}_page()/memset(); allowing brd_rw_bvec() to continue using the page returned by brd_insert_page(). I came to worry one possibility about the above expectation, for I don't know details of xarray. __xa_cmpxchg() calls __xa_cmpxchg_raw() with xa_lock already held. __xa_cmpxchg_raw() always calls __xas_nomem() with xa_lock already held. __xas_nomem() might temporarily release xa_lock for allocating memory if __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM is specified. __xa_cmpxchg_raw() might store "entry" at xas_store() before calling __xas_nomem(). Then, is there a possibility that __xas_nomem() temporarily releases xa_lock for allocating memory after__xa_cmpxchg_raw() already called xas_store() ? Unless there is a guarantee that __xas_nomem() never releases xa_lock if __xa_cmpxchg_raw() called xa_store(), there will be a race window that the page allocated by alloc_page() and stored into brd->brd_pages by __xa_cmpxchg() is removed by __xa_erase() from brd_do_discard() and __free_page() from brd_free_one_page() from call_rcu() from brd_do_discard() is fired before brd_insert_page() calls rcu_lock() immediately after returning from __xa_cmpxchg(). Also, what serializes concurrent brd_insert_page(), for when __xas_nomem() temporarily released xa_lock for allocating memory, two threads might concurrently call kmem_cache_alloc_lru() from __xas_nomem() ?
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.