Re: [PATCH 2/3] fs/locks: Remove fl_nspid

["Benjamin Coddington" <bcodding@redhat.com>]

On 6 Jun 2017, at 14:25, Jeff Layton wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 14:00 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 13:19 -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>>> Since commit c69899a17ca4 "NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range lock must 
>>> be
>>> atomic with the stateid update", NFSv4 has been inserting locks in 
>>> rpciod
>>> worker context.  The result is that the file_lock's fl_nspid is the
>>> kworker's pid instead of the original userspace pid.
>>>
>>> The fl_nspid is only used to represent the namespaced virtual pid 
>>> number
>>> when displaying locks or returning from F_GETLK.  There's no reason 
>>> to set
>>> it for every inserted lock, since we can usually just look it up 
>>> from
>>> fl_pid.  So, instead of looking up and holding struct pid for every 
>>> lock,
>>> let's just look up the virtual pid number from fl_pid when it is 
>>> needed.
>>> That means we can remove fl_nspid entirely.
>>>
>>
>> With this set, I think we ought to codify that the stored pid must be
>> relative
>
> ...to the init_pid_ns. Let's make that clear in the comments for
> filesystem authors.

OK, but I think you mean fl_pid should always be current->tgid or the 
pid as
it is in init_pid_ns.  We translate that pid into the virtual pid of the
process doing F_GETLK or reading /proc/locks.

>>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/locks.c         | 58 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>  include/linux/fs.h |  1 -
>>>  2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>>> index d7daa6c8932f..104398ccc9b9 100644
>>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>>> @@ -733,7 +733,6 @@ static void locks_wake_up_blocks(struct 
>>> file_lock *blocker)
>>>  static void
>>>  locks_insert_lock_ctx(struct file_lock *fl, struct list_head 
>>> *before)
>>>  {
>>> -	fl->fl_nspid = get_pid(task_tgid(current));
>>>  	list_add_tail(&fl->fl_list, before);
>>>  	locks_insert_global_locks(fl);
>>>  }
>>> @@ -743,10 +742,6 @@ locks_unlink_lock_ctx(struct file_lock *fl)
>>>  {
>>>  	locks_delete_global_locks(fl);
>>>  	list_del_init(&fl->fl_list);
>>> -	if (fl->fl_nspid) {
>>> -		put_pid(fl->fl_nspid);
>>> -		fl->fl_nspid = NULL;
>>> -	}
>>>  	locks_wake_up_blocks(fl);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> @@ -823,8 +818,6 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct 
>>> file_lock *fl)
>>>  	list_for_each_entry(cfl, &ctx->flc_posix, fl_list) {
>>>  		if (posix_locks_conflict(fl, cfl)) {
>>>  			locks_copy_conflock(fl, cfl);
>>> -			if (cfl->fl_nspid)
>>> -				fl->fl_pid = pid_vnr(cfl->fl_nspid);
>>>  			goto out;
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>> @@ -2048,6 +2041,31 @@ int vfs_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct 
>>> file_lock *fl)
>>>  }
>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfs_test_lock);
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * locks_translate_pid - translate a pid number into a namespace
>>> + * @nr: The pid number in the init_pid_ns
>>> + * @ns: The namespace into which the pid should be translated
>>> + *
>>> + * Used to tranlate a fl_pid into a namespace virtual pid number
>>> + */
>>> +static pid_t locks_translate_pid(int init_nr, struct pid_namespace 
>>> *ns)
>>> +{
>>> +	pid_t vnr = 0;
>>> +	struct task_struct *task;
>>> +
>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>> +	task = find_task_by_pid_ns(init_nr, &init_pid_ns);
>>> +	if (task)
>>> +		get_task_struct(task);
>>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>>
>> Is that safe? What prevents get_task_struct from doing a 0->1 
>> transition
>> there after the task usage count has already gone 1->0 and is on its 
>> way
>> to being freed?

Uh, no -- seems not safe.  I copied that directly from fs/proc/base.c, 
and
seems a problem there too.

Changing this to the below avoids the race with the struct task being
released:

rcu_read_lock();
struct pid = find_pid_ns(init_nr, &init_pid_ns)
vnr = pid_vnr(pid);
rcu_read_unlock();

Ben