From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG][RFC] broken use of __lookup_mnt() in path_overmounted()
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2025 18:40:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250601174024.GF3574388@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250531205700.GD3574388@ZenIV>
On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 09:57:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> One possibility is to wrap the use of __lookup_mnt() into a sample-and-recheck
> loop there; for the call of path_overmounted() in finish_automount() it'll
> give the right behaviour.
OK, that's definitely the right thing to do, whatever we end up doing
with checks in do_move_mount().
So the rules become:
Mount hash lookup (__lookup_mnt()) requires mount_lock - either
holding its spinlock component, or seqretry on its seqcount component.
If we are not holding the spinlock side of mount_lock, we must
be under rcu_read_lock() at least for the duration of lookup.
Result is safe to dereference as long as
1) mount_lock is still held or
2) rcu_read_lock() is still held or
3) namespace_sem had been held since before the lookup *AND*
parent's refcount remains positive. This covers only the continued safety
of access to the result of lookup; we still must've satisfied the rules
above for the lookup itself.
Acquiring a reference to result in cases (1) and (3) is safe; in case (2)
it must be done with __legitimize_mnt(result, seq), with seq being a value of
mount_lock seqcount component sampled *BEFORE* the lookup.
That's pretty close to the rules for the rest of mount tree walking...
Complications wrt namespace_sem come from dissolving of lazy-umounted
trees; stuck children get detached when parent's refcount drops to zero.
That happens outside of namespace_sem and I don't see any sane way to
change that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-01 17:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-31 20:57 [BUG][RFC] broken use of __lookup_mnt() in path_overmounted() Al Viro
2025-06-01 17:40 ` Al Viro [this message]
2025-06-02 9:17 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-19 2:35 ` 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=20250601174024.GF3574388@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.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