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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).