Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: Don't exchange "short" filenames unconditionally.

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 05:35:26AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014 01:16:15 +0100
> Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> Can we get the below added somewhere in Documentation/filesystems/ ? I
> don't see anything there that covers all this.

More documentation would of course be nice, but the root cause of my
confusion was attempting to give an intelligent review of a significant
change to VFS given a 2-hour chunk of time, and without having spent
enough time getting familiar with VFS.  I would of course need to spend
more like a week or two, or at least several days, going through the
current code.

								Thanx, Paul

> > Huh?  copy_name() does copy a _reference_, not the name itself.  All the
> > copying involved is source->d_name.name = target->d_name.name.  And those
> > are simply unsigned char *.
> > 
> > write_seqcount_begin() is irrelevant here.  Look: all callers of
> > __d_move(x, y) are holding references both to x and y.  Contributing to
> > the refcount of dentries themselves, that is, not the names.
> > 
> > That gives exclusion between __d_move() and free_dentry() - the latter cannot
> > be called until dentry refcount reaches zero.  RCU is completely irrelevant
> > here.  In fact, no call chain leads to __d_move() under rcu_read_lock().
> > You must hold the target dentry hard, or it could simply be freed right
> > under you.
> > 
> > And __d_move() is taking ->d_lock on all dentries involved (in
> > addition to rename_lock serializing it system-wide).
> > 
> > What could possibly lead to refcount zero being observed on target of
> > __d_move()?  The history of any dentry is this:
> > 	* it is created by __d_alloc().  Nobody can see it until __d_alloc()
> > returns.  Dentry refcount (not to be confused with refcount of external
> > name) is 1.
> > 	* it passes through some (usually - zero) __d_move() calls.
> > Some - as the first argument, some - as the second one.  All those
> > calls are serialized by global seqlock - callers must hold rename_lock.
> > And all of them are done by somebody who is holding a counting reference
> > to dentries in question.
> > 	* counting references to dentry might be taken and dropped;
> > eventually refcount reaches zero (under ->d_lock) and no further
> > counting references can be taken after that.  See __dentry_kill() - the
> > first thing it does is poisoning the refcount, so that any future
> > attempt to increment it would fail.  __dentry_kill() (still under ->d_lock
> > of dentry, ->d_lock of its parent and ->i_lock of its inode) removes
> > dentry from the tree, from hash and from the alias list of inode;
> > Then it drops the locks.  At that point the only search structure dentry
> > might be found in is shrink list; if it's not on such list, free_dentry()
> > is called immediately, otherwise it's marked so that the code processing
> > the shrink list in question would, as soon as it gets to that sucker,
> > remove it from the shrink list and call the same free_dentry().  And that's
> > the only thing done to such dentry by somebody finding it via a shrink list.
> > 	* once free_dentry() has been reached, dentry can can be only seen
> > by RCU lookups, and after the grace period ends it gets physically freed.
> > 
> > free_dentry() isn't allowed to overlap __d_move(); to have that happen is
> > a serious dentry refcounting bug.  No __d_move() is allowed _after_
> > free_dentry() has been entered, either.  Again, it would take a refcounting
> > bug for dentries to have that happen - basically, double dput() somewhere.
> > If that happens, all bets are off, of course - if dentry gets unexpectedly
> > freed under somebody who has grabbed a reference to it and has not dropped
> > it yet, we are fucked.
> > 
> > Nothing outside of __d_move() is allowed to change ->d_name.name.  RCU-critical
> > code is allowed to fetch and dereference it, and such code relies upon
> > 	a) freeing of name seen by somebody who'd done rcu_read_lock() being
> > delayed until after the matching rcu_read_unlock()
> > 	b) store of terminating NUL done by __d_alloc() (and never overwritten
> > afterwards) being seen by RCU-critical code that has found the pointer to
> > that name in dentry->d_name.name
> > 
> > All other code accessing ->d_name.name is required to hold one of the locks
> > that are held by __d_move() and its callers.  Grabbing any of those leads
> > to smp_mb() on alpha, which serves as data dependency barrier there, so
> > we don't need explicit barrier there as we do in RCU-critical places - guarding
> > NUL will be seen.
>