From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH] make sure that lock_for_kill() callers drop the locks in safe order
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:48:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260410084839.GA1310153@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260409215733.GS3836593@ZenIV>
[this may or may not be the source of UAFs caught by Jeff and by Helge]
lock_for_kill() losing a race to eviction by another thread will end up
returning false (correctly - the caller should *not* evict dentry in
that case), with ->d_lock held and rcu read-critical area still unbroken,
so the caller can safely drop the locks, provided that it's done in the
right order - ->d_lock should be dropped before rcu_read_unlock().
Unfortunately, 3 of 4 callers did it the other way round and for two of them
(finish_dput() and shrink_kill()) that ended up with a possibility of UAF.
The third (shrink_dentry_list()) had been safe for other reasons (dentry being
on the shrink list => the other thread wouldn't even schedule its freeing
until observing dentry off the shrink list while holding ->d_lock), but it's
simpler to make it a general rule - in case of lock_for_kill() failure
->d_lock must be dropped before rcu_read_unlock().
UAF scenario was basically this:
dput() drops the last reference to foo/bar and evicts it.
The reference it held to foo happens to be the last one.
When trylock on ->i_lock of parent's inode fails, we
(under rcu_read_lock()) drop ->d_lock and take the locks in
the right order; while we'd been spinning on ->i_lock somebody
else comes and evicts the parent.
Noticing non-zero (negative) refcount we decide there's nothing
left to do. And had we only dropped parent's ->d_lock before
rcu_read_unlock(), everything would be fine. Unfortunately,
doing that the other way round allows rcu-scheduled freeing of
parent to proceed before we drop its ->d_lock.
The same applies if instead of final dput() of foo/bar it gets evicted
by shrink_dcache_parent() or memory pressure, again taking out the last
reference to that used to pin its parent.
Fixes: 339e9e13530b ("don't try to cut corners in shrink_lock_dentry()")
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index 0c8faeee02e2..b1c163f20db6 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -751,6 +751,8 @@ static struct dentry *__dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry)
*
* Return false if dentry is busy. Otherwise, return true and have
* that dentry's inode locked.
+ *
+ * On failure the caller must drop ->d_lock *before* rcu_read_unlock()
*/
static bool lock_for_kill(struct dentry *dentry)
@@ -933,8 +935,8 @@ static void finish_dput(struct dentry *dentry)
}
rcu_read_lock();
}
- rcu_read_unlock();
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
/*
@@ -1193,11 +1195,12 @@ static inline void shrink_kill(struct dentry *victim)
do {
rcu_read_unlock();
victim = __dentry_kill(victim);
+ if (!victim)
+ return;
rcu_read_lock();
- } while (victim && lock_for_kill(victim));
+ } while (lock_for_kill(victim));
+ spin_unlock(&victim->d_lock);
rcu_read_unlock();
- if (victim)
- spin_unlock(&victim->d_lock);
}
void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
@@ -1210,10 +1213,10 @@ void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
rcu_read_lock();
if (!lock_for_kill(dentry)) {
bool can_free;
- rcu_read_unlock();
d_shrink_del(dentry);
can_free = dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED;
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
if (can_free)
dentry_free(dentry);
continue;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-10 8:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-22 20:20 [PATCH][RFC] get rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-01-23 0:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-23 0:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 4:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 4:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 5:36 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 18:43 ` Al Viro
2026-01-24 19:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-01-24 20:28 ` Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] for_each_alias(): helper macro for iterating through dentries of given inode Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/4] struct dentry: make ->d_u anonymous Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] dcache.c: more idiomatic "positives are not allowed" sanity checks Al Viro
2026-04-02 18:08 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] get rid of busy-waiting in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-04-02 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-02 22:44 ` Al Viro
2026-04-02 22:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-02 23:16 ` Al Viro
2026-04-03 0:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-03 2:15 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 0:02 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 0:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-04 18:54 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 19:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-04-05 0:04 ` Al Viro
2026-04-02 20:28 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Paulo Alcantara
2026-04-03 4:46 ` Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 " Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] for_each_alias(): helper macro for iterating through dentries of given inode Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] struct dentry: make ->d_u anonymous Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] dcache.c: more idiomatic "positives are not allowed" sanity checks Al Viro
2026-04-04 8:07 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] get rid of busy-waiting in shrink_dcache_tree() Al Viro
2026-04-09 16:51 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] getting rid of busy-wait in shrink_dcache_parent() Jeff Layton
2026-04-09 19:02 ` Al Viro
2026-04-09 20:10 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-09 21:57 ` Al Viro
2026-04-09 22:38 ` Jeff Layton
2026-04-10 8:48 ` Al Viro [this message]
2026-04-10 11:18 ` [RFC][PATCH] make sure that lock_for_kill() callers drop the locks in safe order Jeff Layton
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=20260410084839.GA1310153@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=max.kellermann@ionos.com \
--cc=nik.borisov@suse.com \
--cc=pc@manguebit.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--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