From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] __legitimize_mnt(): check for MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT should be under mount_lock
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 21:00:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250508200053.GD2023217@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250508195916.GC2023217@ZenIV>
... or we risk stealing final mntput from sync umount - raising mnt_count
after umount(2) has verified that victim is not busy, but before it
has set MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT; in that case __legitimize_mnt() doesn't see
that it's safe to quietly undo mnt_count increment and leaves dropping
the reference to caller, where it'll be a full-blown mntput().
Check under mount_lock is needed; leaving the current one done before
taking that makes no sense - it's nowhere near common enough to bother
with.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
fs/namespace.c | 6 +-----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
index 98a5cd756e9a..eba4748388b1 100644
--- a/fs/namespace.c
+++ b/fs/namespace.c
@@ -790,12 +790,8 @@ int __legitimize_mnt(struct vfsmount *bastard, unsigned seq)
smp_mb(); // see mntput_no_expire()
if (likely(!read_seqretry(&mount_lock, seq)))
return 0;
- if (bastard->mnt_flags & MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT) {
- mnt_add_count(mnt, -1);
- return 1;
- }
lock_mount_hash();
- if (unlikely(bastard->mnt_flags & MNT_DOOMED)) {
+ if (unlikely(bastard->mnt_flags & (MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT | MNT_DOOMED))) {
mnt_add_count(mnt, -1);
unlock_mount_hash();
return 1;
--
2.39.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-08 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-28 6:30 [RFC] move_mount(2): still breakage around new mount detection Al Viro
2025-04-28 7:03 ` Al Viro
2025-04-28 8:50 ` Christian Brauner
2025-04-28 18:53 ` Al Viro
2025-04-29 4:03 ` Al Viro
2025-04-29 5:10 ` Al Viro
2025-04-29 5:27 ` Al Viro
2025-04-29 8:21 ` Christian Brauner
2025-05-05 5:08 ` Al Viro
2025-05-05 14:20 ` Christian Brauner
2025-04-29 7:56 ` Christian Brauner
2025-04-29 12:27 ` Al Viro
2025-04-29 7:52 ` Christian Brauner
2025-05-08 5:56 ` more breakage there (was Re: [RFC] move_mount(2): still breakage around new mount detection) Al Viro
2025-05-08 19:59 ` Al Viro
2025-05-08 20:00 ` Al Viro [this message]
2025-05-09 11:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] __legitimize_mnt(): check for MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT should be under mount_lock Christian Brauner
2025-05-08 20:01 ` [PATCH 2/4] do_umount(): add missing barrier before refcount checks in sync case Al Viro
2025-05-09 11:02 ` Christian Brauner
2025-05-08 20:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] do_move_mount(): don't leak MNTNS_PROPAGATING on failures Al Viro
2025-05-08 20:03 ` reproducer for "do_move_mount(): don't leak MNTNS_PROPAGATING on failures" Al Viro
2025-05-09 11:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] do_move_mount(): don't leak MNTNS_PROPAGATING on failures Christian Brauner
2025-05-13 11:03 ` Lai, Yi
2025-05-13 12:08 ` Al Viro
2025-05-13 14:33 ` Lai, Yi
2025-05-08 20:02 ` [PATCH 4/4] fix IS_MNT_PROPAGATING uses Al Viro
2025-05-08 20:04 ` reproducer for "fix IS_MNT_PROPAGATING uses" Al Viro
2025-05-09 11:01 ` [PATCH 4/4] fix IS_MNT_PROPAGATING uses Christian Brauner
2025-05-09 11:06 ` more breakage there (was Re: [RFC] move_mount(2): still breakage around new mount detection) Christian Brauner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250508200053.GD2023217@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.