linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@gmail.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/dcache: use lockdep assertion instead of warn try_lock
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:24:40 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7611e896d3120d5f8c2b579d32590f26080622c5.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220325190001.1832-1-dossche.niels@gmail.com>

On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 20:00 +0100, Niels Dossche wrote:
> Currently, there is a fallback with a WARN that uses down_read_trylock
> as a safety measure for when there is no lock taken. The current
> callsites expect a write lock to be taken. Moreover, the s_root field
> is written to, which is not allowed under a read lock.
> This code safety fallback should not be executed unless there is an
> issue somewhere else.
> Using a lockdep assertion better communicates the intent of the code,
> and gets rid of the currently slightly wrong fallback solution.
> 
> Note:
> I am currently working on a static analyser to detect missing locks
> using type-based static analysis as my master's thesis
> in order to obtain my master's degree.
> If you would like to have more details, please let me know.
> This was a reported case. I manually verified the report by looking
> at the code, so that I do not send wrong information or patches.
> After concluding that this seems to be a true positive, I created
> this patch. I have both compile-tested this patch and runtime-tested
> this patch on x86_64. The effect on a running system could be a
> potential race condition in exceptional cases.
> This issue was found on Linux v5.17.
> 
> Fixes: c636ebdb186bf ("VFS: Destroy the dentries contributed by a superblock on unmounting")
> Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@gmail.com>
> ---
>  fs/dcache.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> index c84269c6e8bf..0142f15340e5 100644
> --- a/fs/dcache.c
> +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> @@ -1692,7 +1692,7 @@ void shrink_dcache_for_umount(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>  	struct dentry *dentry;
>  
> -	WARN(down_read_trylock(&sb->s_umount), "s_umount should've been locked");
> +	lockdep_assert_held_write(&sb->s_umount);
>  
>  	dentry = sb->s_root;
>  	sb->s_root = NULL;

Much nicer.

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-03-29 15:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-25 19:00 [PATCH] fs/dcache: use lockdep assertion instead of warn try_lock Niels Dossche
2022-03-26  6:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-03-29 15:24 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2022-03-30 10:32 ` 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=7611e896d3120d5f8c2b579d32590f26080622c5.camel@kernel.org \
    --to=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=dossche.niels@gmail.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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).