From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 09/25] shrink_dentry_list(): start with removing from shrink list
Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 06:53:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260505055412.1261144-10-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260505055412.1261144-1-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Currently we leave dentry on the list until we are done with
lock_for_kill(). That guarantees that it won't have been
even scheduled for removal until we remove it from the list
and drop ->d_lock. We grab ->d_lock and rcu_read_lock()
and call lock_for_kill(). There are four possible cases:
1) lock_for_kill() has succeeded; dentry and its inode
(if any) are locked, dentry refcount is zero and we can
remove it from shrink list and feed it to shrink_kill().
2) lock_for_kill() fails since dentry has become busy.
Nothing to do, rcu_read_unlock(), remove from shrink list,
drop ->d_lock and move on.
3) lock_for_kill() fails since dentry is currently
being killed - already entered __dentry_kill(), but hasn't
reached dentry_unlist() yet. Nothing to do, we should just
do rcu_read_unlock(), remove from shrink list so that
whoever's executing __dentry_kill() would free it once they
are done, drop ->d_lock and move on - same actions as in
case (2).
4) lock_for_kill() fails since dentry has been killed
(reached dentry_unlist(), DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED set in ->d_flags).
In that case whoever had been killing it had already seen it
on our shrink list and skipped freeing it. At that point it's
just a passive chunk of memory; rcu_read_unlock(), remove from
the list, drop ->d_lock and use dentry_free() to schedule
freeing.
While that works, there's a simpler way to do it:
* grab ->d_lock
* remove dentry from our shrink list
* if DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED is already set, drop ->d_lock and move on.
* otherwise grab rcu_read_lock() and call lock_for_free()
* if lock_for_kill() succeeds, feed dentry
to shrink_kill(), otherwise drop the locks and move on.
The end result is equivalent to the old variant. The only difference
arises if at the time we grab ->d_lock dentry had refcount 0 and
lock_for_kill() had failed spin_trylock() and had to drop and regain
->d_lock. Otherwise nobody can observe at which point within the
unbroken ->d_lock scope dentry had been removed from the shrink list -
all accesses to ->d_lru are under ->d_lock.
If ->d_lock had been dropped and regained, it is possible for another
thread to feed that dentry to __dentry_kill(); if it doesn't get to
dentry_unlist() before we regain ->d_lock, behaviour is still identical -
it's case (3) and by the time __dentry_kill() would've gotten around
to checking if the victim is on shrink list, it would've been already
removed from ours.
If __dentry_kill() from another thread *does* get to dentry_unlist(),
in the old variant we would have __dentry_kill() leave calling
dentry_free() to us and in the new one __dentry_kill() would've called
dentry_free() itself. Since we are under rcu_read_lock(), we are
guaranteed that actual freeing won't happen until we get around to
rcu_read_unlock(). IOW, the new variant is still safe wrt UAF, if
not for the same reason as the old one, and overall result is the same;
the only difference is which threads ends up scheduling the actual
freeing of dentry.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
fs/dcache.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index 34d57ed9d791..ee11171a75e6 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -1228,19 +1228,19 @@ void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
dentry = list_entry(list->prev, struct dentry, d_lru);
spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ d_shrink_del(dentry);
+ if (unlikely(dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED)) {
+ dentry_free(dentry);
+ spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ continue;
+ }
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);
- if (can_free)
- dentry_free(dentry);
- continue;
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ } else {
+ shrink_kill(dentry);
}
- d_shrink_del(dentry);
- shrink_kill(dentry);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(shrink_dentry_list);
--
2.47.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-05 5:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-05 5:53 [RFC PATCH 00/25] assorted dcache cleanups and fixes Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 01/25] VFS: use wait_var_event for waiting in d_alloc_parallel() Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 02/25] alloc_path_pseudo(): make sure we don't end up with NORCU dentries for directories Al Viro
2026-05-05 8:21 ` NeilBrown
2026-05-05 17:48 ` Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 03/25] fix a race between d_find_any_alias() and final dput() of NORCU dentries Al Viro
2026-05-05 17:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-05-05 20:29 ` Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 04/25] find_acceptable_alias(): skip NORCU aliases with zero refcount Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 05/25] select_collect(): ignore dentries on shrink lists if they have positive refcounts Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 06/25] make to_shrink_list() return whether it has moved dentry to list Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 07/25] kill d_dispose_if_unused() Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 08/25] d_prune_aliases(): make sure to skip NORCU aliases Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` Al Viro [this message]
2026-05-07 20:39 ` [RFC PATCH 09/25] shrink_dentry_list(): start with removing from shrink list Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 10/25] fold lock_for_kill() into shrink_kill() Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 11/25] fold lock_for_kill() and __dentry_kill() into common helper Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:53 ` [RFC PATCH 12/25] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 1 Al Viro
2026-05-05 8:55 ` NeilBrown
2026-05-05 14:22 ` Al Viro
2026-05-05 21:58 ` NeilBrown
2026-05-05 16:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-05-05 22:42 ` Al Viro
2026-05-07 7:35 ` Al Viro
2026-05-07 15:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 13/25] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 2 Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 14/25] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 3 Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 15/25] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 4 Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 16/25] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 5 Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 17/25] reducing rcu_read_lock() scopes in dput and friends, step 6 Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 18/25] adjust calling conventions of lock_for_kill(), fold __dentry_kill() into dentry_kill() Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 19/25] document dentry_kill() Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 20/25] d_walk(): shrink rcu_read_lock() scope Al Viro
2026-05-05 17:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2026-05-05 20:05 ` Al Viro
2026-05-05 21:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2026-05-05 22:50 ` Al Viro
2026-05-06 3:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-05-07 22:39 ` NeilBrown
2026-05-07 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-05-08 14:47 ` Al Viro
2026-05-08 22:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2026-05-08 23:03 ` Al Viro
2026-05-08 3:01 ` Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 21/25] shrinking rcu_read_lock() scope in d_alloc_parallel() Al Viro
2026-05-07 21:52 ` Jori Koolstra
2026-05-08 3:12 ` Al Viro
2026-05-08 9:28 ` Jori Koolstra
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 22/25] shrink_dentry_tree(): unify the calls of shrink_dentry_list() Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 23/25] wind ->s_roots via ->d_sib instead of ->d_hash Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 24/25] nfs: get rid of fake root dentries Al Viro
2026-05-05 5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 25/25] make cursors NORCU Al Viro
2026-05-05 17:09 ` [RFC PATCH 00/25] assorted dcache cleanups and fixes Linus Torvalds
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=20260505055412.1261144-10-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neil@brown.name \
--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