commit: 7bf1823e010e8db2fb649c790bd1b449a75f52d8 upstream

syzbot has found a possible deadlock in ocfs2_get_system_file_inode [1].

The scenario is depicted here,

	CPU0					CPU1
lock(&ocfs2_file_ip_alloc_sem_key);
                               lock(&osb->system_file_mutex);
                               lock(&ocfs2_file_ip_alloc_sem_key);
lock(&osb->system_file_mutex);

The function calls which could lead to this are:

CPU0
ocfs2_mknod - lock(&ocfs2_file_ip_alloc_sem_key);
.
.
.
ocfs2_get_system_file_inode - lock(&osb->system_file_mutex);

CPU1 -
ocfs2_fill_super - lock(&osb->system_file_mutex);
.
.
.
ocfs2_read_virt_blocks - lock(&ocfs2_file_ip_alloc_sem_key);

This issue can be resolved by making the down_read -> down_read_try
in the ocfs2_read_virt_blocks.

[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e0055ea09f1f5e6fabdd

Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240924093257.7181-1-pvmohammedanees2003@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Kevin Paul Reddy Janagari <kevinpaul468@gmail.com>
---
 fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
index 70a768b623cf..f7672472fa82 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
@@ -973,7 +973,13 @@ int ocfs2_read_virt_blocks(struct inode *inode, u64 v_block, int nr,
 	}
 
 	while (done < nr) {
-		down_read(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem);
+		if (!down_read_trylock(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem)) {
+			rc = -EAGAIN;
+			mlog(ML_ERROR,
+				 "Inode #%llu ip_alloc_sem is temporarily unavailable\n",
+				 (unsigned long long)OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_blkno);
+			break;
+		}
 		rc = ocfs2_extent_map_get_blocks(inode, v_block + done,
 						 &p_block, &p_count, NULL);
 		up_read(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem);
-- 
2.39.5

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 09:59:11PM +0530, Kevin Paul Reddy Janagari wrote:
> This issue can be resolved by making the down_read -> down_read_try
> in the ocfs2_read_virt_blocks.

ITYM "can be papered over by..."; *IF* fill_super() is the only place where
these are taken in such order, this is strictly worse than the current
situation - you are taking a false positive from lockdep (fill_super is
not going to have any other threads accessing the same fs instance) and
adding random failures and syslog spew where none existed.

NAK in that form; it _may_ serve as a stopgap if fill_super is not
the only place where we do it in such order, but even then we need
to deal with the problem properly.