From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
Joel Granados <joel.granados@kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3?] proc_sysctl: remove rcu_dereference() for accessing ->sysctl
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:57:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250615235714.GG1880847@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <175002843966.608730.14640390628578526912@noble.neil.brown.name>
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 09:00:39AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> The rcu_dereference() call in proc_sys_compare() is problematic as
> ->d_compare is not guaranteed to be called with rcu_read_lock() held and
> rcu_dereference() can cause a warning when used without that lock.
>
> Specifically d_alloc_parallel() will call ->d_compare() without
> rcu_read_lock(), but with ->d_lock to ensure stability. In this case
> ->d_inode is usually NULL so the rcu_dereference() will normally not be
> reached, but it is possible that ->d_inode was set while waiting for
> ->d_lock which could lead to the warning.
Huh?
There are two call sites of d_same_name() in d_alloc_parallel() - one
in the loop (under rcu_read_lock()) and another after the thing we
are comparing has ceased to be in-lookup. The latter is under ->d_lock,
stabilizing everything (and it really can't run into NULL ->d_inode
for /proc/sys/ stuff).
->d_compare() instances are guaranteed dentry->d_lock or rcu_read_lock();
in the latter case we'll either recheck or validate on previously sampled
->d_seq. And the second call in d_alloc_parallel() is just that - recheck
under ->d_lock.
Just use rcu_dereference_check(...., spin_is_locked(&dentry->d_lock)) and
be done with that...
The part where we have a somewhat wrong behaviour is not the second call
in d_alloc_parallel() - it's the first one. Something like this
static int proc_sys_compare(const struct dentry *dentry,
unsigned int len, const char *str, const struct qstr *name)
{
struct ctl_table_header *head;
struct inode *inode;
if (name->len != len)
return 1;
if (memcmp(name->name, str, len))
return 1;
// false positive is fine here - we'll recheck anyway
if (d_in_lookup(dentry))
return 0;
inode = d_inode_rcu(dentry);
// we just might have run into dentry in the middle of __dentry_kill()
if (!inode)
return 1;
head = rcu_dereference_check(PROC_I(inode)->sysctl,
spin_is_locked(&dentry->d_lock));
return !head || !sysctl_is_seen(head);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-15 23:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-15 23:00 [PATCH v3?] proc_sysctl: remove rcu_dereference() for accessing ->sysctl NeilBrown
2025-06-15 23:57 ` Al Viro [this message]
2025-06-16 2:49 ` NeilBrown
2025-07-03 23:43 ` Al Viro
2025-07-04 1:02 ` Al Viro
2025-07-04 1:39 ` NeilBrown
2025-07-04 2:19 ` Al Viro
2025-07-04 1:39 ` NeilBrown
2025-07-04 2:03 ` Al Viro
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=20250615235714.GG1880847@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=joel.granados@kernel.org \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neil@brown.name \
/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.