[PATCH] locks: fix TOCTOU race when granting write lease

[PATCH] locks: fix TOCTOU race when granting write lease

[Amir Goldstein]

Thread A trying to acquire a write lease checks the value of i_readcount
and i_writecount in check_conflicting_open() to verify that its own fd
is the only fd referencing the file.

Thread B trying to open the file for read will call break_lease() in
do_dentry_open() before incrementing i_readcount, which leaves a small
window where thread A can acquire the write lease and then thread B
completes the open of the file for read without breaking the write lease
that was acquired by thread A.

Fix this race by incrementing i_readcount before checking for existing
leases, same as the case with i_writecount.

Use a helper put_file_access() to decrement i_readcount or i_writecount
in do_dentry_open() and __fput().

Fixes: 387e3746d01c ("locks: eliminate false positive conflicts for write lease")
Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
---

Hi Jeff,

This fixes a race I found during code audit - I do not have a reproducer
for it.

I ran the fstests I found for locks and leases:
generic/131 generic/478 generic/504 generic/571
and the LTP fcntl tests.

Encountered this warning with generic/131, but I also see it on
current master:

 =============================
 WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
 5.19.0-xfstests-14277-gbd6ab3ef4e93 #966 Not tainted
 -----------------------------
 include/net/sock.h:592 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!

 other info that might help us debug this:


 rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
 5 locks held by locktest/3996:
  #0: ffff88800be1d7a0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __sock_release+0x25/0x97
  #1: ffff88800909ce00 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: tcp_close+0x14/0x60
  #2: ffff888006847cc8 (&h->lhash2[i].lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: inet_unhash+0x3a/0xcf
  #3: ffffffff82a8ac18 (reuseport_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: reuseport_detach_sock+0x17/0xb8
  #4: ffff88800909d0b0 (clock-AF_INET){++..}-{2:2}, at: bpf_sk_reuseport_detach+0x1b/0x85

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 PID: 3996 Comm: locktest Not tainted 5.19.0-xfstests-14277-gbd6ab3ef4e93 #966
 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x5d
  bpf_sk_reuseport_detach+0x5c/0x85
  reuseport_detach_sock+0x65/0xb8
  inet_unhash+0x55/0xcf
  tcp_set_state+0xb3/0x10d
  ? mark_lock.part.0+0x30/0x101
  __tcp_close+0x26/0x32d
  tcp_close+0x20/0x60
  inet_release+0x50/0x64
  __sock_release+0x32/0x97
  sock_close+0x14/0x1b
  __fput+0x118/0x1eb


Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Amir.

 fs/file_table.c    |  7 +------
 fs/open.c          | 11 ++++-------
 include/linux/fs.h | 10 ++++++++++
 3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/file_table.c b/fs/file_table.c
index 99c6796c9f28..dd88701e54a9 100644
--- a/fs/file_table.c
+++ b/fs/file_table.c
@@ -324,12 +324,7 @@ static void __fput(struct file *file)
 	}
 	fops_put(file->f_op);
 	put_pid(file->f_owner.pid);
-	if ((mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ)
-		i_readcount_dec(inode);
-	if (mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
-		put_write_access(inode);
-		__mnt_drop_write(mnt);
-	}
+	put_file_access(file);
 	dput(dentry);
 	if (unlikely(mode & FMODE_NEED_UNMOUNT))
 		dissolve_on_fput(mnt);
diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
index 8a813fa5ca56..a98572585815 100644
--- a/fs/open.c
+++ b/fs/open.c
@@ -840,7 +840,9 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE && !special_file(inode->i_mode)) {
+	if ((f->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
+		i_readcount_inc(inode);
+	} else if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE && !special_file(inode->i_mode)) {
 		error = get_write_access(inode);
 		if (unlikely(error))
 			goto cleanup_file;
@@ -880,8 +882,6 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
 			goto cleanup_all;
 	}
 	f->f_mode |= FMODE_OPENED;
-	if ((f->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ)
-		i_readcount_inc(inode);
 	if ((f->f_mode & FMODE_READ) &&
 	     likely(f->f_op->read || f->f_op->read_iter))
 		f->f_mode |= FMODE_CAN_READ;
@@ -935,10 +935,7 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(error > 0))
 		error = -EINVAL;
 	fops_put(f->f_op);
-	if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
-		put_write_access(inode);
-		__mnt_drop_write(f->f_path.mnt);
-	}
+	put_file_access(f);
 cleanup_file:
 	path_put(&f->f_path);
 	f->f_path.mnt = NULL;
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 9eced4cc286e..8bc04852c3da 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -3000,6 +3000,16 @@ static inline void i_readcount_inc(struct inode *inode)
 	return;
 }
 #endif
+static inline void put_file_access(struct file *file)
+{
+	if ((file->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
+		i_readcount_dec(file->f_inode);
+	} else if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
+		put_write_access(file->f_inode);
+		__mnt_drop_write(file->f_path.mnt);
+	}
+}
+
 extern int do_pipe_flags(int *, int);
 
 extern ssize_t kernel_read(struct file *, void *, size_t, loff_t *);
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH] locks: fix TOCTOU race when granting write lease

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 06:23:22PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Thread A trying to acquire a write lease checks the value of i_readcount
> and i_writecount in check_conflicting_open() to verify that its own fd
> is the only fd referencing the file.
> 
> Thread B trying to open the file for read will call break_lease() in
> do_dentry_open() before incrementing i_readcount, which leaves a small
> window where thread A can acquire the write lease and then thread B
> completes the open of the file for read without breaking the write lease
> that was acquired by thread A.
> 
> Fix this race by incrementing i_readcount before checking for existing
> leases, same as the case with i_writecount.
> 
> Use a helper put_file_access() to decrement i_readcount or i_writecount
> in do_dentry_open() and __fput().
> 
> Fixes: 387e3746d01c ("locks: eliminate false positive conflicts for write lease")
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>

Looks sane; I'd probably collapsed cleanup_file and cleanup_all while we are
at it, but then I can do that in a followup as well.

> +static inline void put_file_access(struct file *file)
> +{
> +	if ((file->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
> +		i_readcount_dec(file->f_inode);
> +	} else if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> +		put_write_access(file->f_inode);
> +		__mnt_drop_write(file->f_path.mnt);
> +	}
> +}

What's the point of having it in linux/fs.h instead of internal.h?

Re: [PATCH] locks: fix TOCTOU race when granting write lease

[Amir Goldstein]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 8:57 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 06:23:22PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Thread A trying to acquire a write lease checks the value of i_readcount
> > and i_writecount in check_conflicting_open() to verify that its own fd
> > is the only fd referencing the file.
> >
> > Thread B trying to open the file for read will call break_lease() in
> > do_dentry_open() before incrementing i_readcount, which leaves a small
> > window where thread A can acquire the write lease and then thread B
> > completes the open of the file for read without breaking the write lease
> > that was acquired by thread A.
> >
> > Fix this race by incrementing i_readcount before checking for existing
> > leases, same as the case with i_writecount.
> >
> > Use a helper put_file_access() to decrement i_readcount or i_writecount
> > in do_dentry_open() and __fput().
> >
> > Fixes: 387e3746d01c ("locks: eliminate false positive conflicts for write lease")
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
>
> Looks sane; I'd probably collapsed cleanup_file and cleanup_all while we are
> at it, but then I can do that in a followup as well.
>

Not sure how you envision that cleanup, so I'll let you do it.

> > +static inline void put_file_access(struct file *file)
> > +{
> > +     if ((file->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
> > +             i_readcount_dec(file->f_inode);
> > +     } else if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> > +             put_write_access(file->f_inode);
> > +             __mnt_drop_write(file->f_path.mnt);
> > +     }
> > +}
>
> What's the point of having it in linux/fs.h instead of internal.h?

No reason. Overlooked.
Do you need me to re-send or will you move it to internal.h yourself?

Thanks,
Amir.

Re: [PATCH] locks: fix TOCTOU race when granting write lease

[Jeff Layton]

On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 18:23 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Thread A trying to acquire a write lease checks the value of i_readcount
> and i_writecount in check_conflicting_open() to verify that its own fd
> is the only fd referencing the file.
> 
> Thread B trying to open the file for read will call break_lease() in
> do_dentry_open() before incrementing i_readcount, which leaves a small
> window where thread A can acquire the write lease and then thread B
> completes the open of the file for read without breaking the write lease
> that was acquired by thread A.
> 
> Fix this race by incrementing i_readcount before checking for existing
> leases, same as the case with i_writecount.
> 

Nice catch.

> Use a helper put_file_access() to decrement i_readcount or i_writecount
> in do_dentry_open() and __fput().
> 
> Fixes: 387e3746d01c ("locks: eliminate false positive conflicts for write lease")
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> This fixes a race I found during code audit - I do not have a reproducer
> for it.
> 
> I ran the fstests I found for locks and leases:
> generic/131 generic/478 generic/504 generic/571
> and the LTP fcntl tests.
> 
> Encountered this warning with generic/131, but I also see it on
> current master:
> 
>  =============================
>  WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
>  5.19.0-xfstests-14277-gbd6ab3ef4e93 #966 Not tainted
>  -----------------------------
>  include/net/sock.h:592 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> 
>  other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> 
>  rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
>  5 locks held by locktest/3996:
>   #0: ffff88800be1d7a0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __sock_release+0x25/0x97
>   #1: ffff88800909ce00 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: tcp_close+0x14/0x60
>   #2: ffff888006847cc8 (&h->lhash2[i].lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: inet_unhash+0x3a/0xcf
>   #3: ffffffff82a8ac18 (reuseport_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: reuseport_detach_sock+0x17/0xb8
>   #4: ffff88800909d0b0 (clock-AF_INET){++..}-{2:2}, at: bpf_sk_reuseport_detach+0x1b/0x85
> 
>  stack backtrace:
>  CPU: 1 PID: 3996 Comm: locktest Not tainted 5.19.0-xfstests-14277-gbd6ab3ef4e93 #966
>  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
>  Call Trace:
>   <TASK>
>   dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x5d
>   bpf_sk_reuseport_detach+0x5c/0x85
>   reuseport_detach_sock+0x65/0xb8
>   inet_unhash+0x55/0xcf
>   tcp_set_state+0xb3/0x10d
>   ? mark_lock.part.0+0x30/0x101
>   __tcp_close+0x26/0x32d
>   tcp_close+0x20/0x60
>   inet_release+0x50/0x64
>   __sock_release+0x32/0x97
>   sock_close+0x14/0x1b
>   __fput+0x118/0x1eb
> 
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Amir.
> 
>  fs/file_table.c    |  7 +------
>  fs/open.c          | 11 ++++-------
>  include/linux/fs.h | 10 ++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/file_table.c b/fs/file_table.c
> index 99c6796c9f28..dd88701e54a9 100644
> --- a/fs/file_table.c
> +++ b/fs/file_table.c
> @@ -324,12 +324,7 @@ static void __fput(struct file *file)
>  	}
>  	fops_put(file->f_op);
>  	put_pid(file->f_owner.pid);
> -	if ((mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ)
> -		i_readcount_dec(inode);
> -	if (mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> -		put_write_access(inode);
> -		__mnt_drop_write(mnt);
> -	}
> +	put_file_access(file);
>  	dput(dentry);
>  	if (unlikely(mode & FMODE_NEED_UNMOUNT))
>  		dissolve_on_fput(mnt);
> diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> index 8a813fa5ca56..a98572585815 100644
> --- a/fs/open.c
> +++ b/fs/open.c
> @@ -840,7 +840,9 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
>  		return 0;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE && !special_file(inode->i_mode)) {
> +	if ((f->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
> +		i_readcount_inc(inode);
> +	} else if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE && !special_file(inode->i_mode)) {
>  		error = get_write_access(inode);
>  		if (unlikely(error))
>  			goto cleanup_file;
> @@ -880,8 +882,6 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
>  			goto cleanup_all;
>  	}
>  	f->f_mode |= FMODE_OPENED;
> -	if ((f->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ)
> -		i_readcount_inc(inode);
>  	if ((f->f_mode & FMODE_READ) &&
>  	     likely(f->f_op->read || f->f_op->read_iter))
>  		f->f_mode |= FMODE_CAN_READ;
> @@ -935,10 +935,7 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(error > 0))
>  		error = -EINVAL;
>  	fops_put(f->f_op);
> -	if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> -		put_write_access(inode);
> -		__mnt_drop_write(f->f_path.mnt);
> -	}
> +	put_file_access(f);
>  cleanup_file:
>  	path_put(&f->f_path);
>  	f->f_path.mnt = NULL;
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 9eced4cc286e..8bc04852c3da 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -3000,6 +3000,16 @@ static inline void i_readcount_inc(struct inode *inode)
>  	return;
>  }
>  #endif
> +static inline void put_file_access(struct file *file)
> +{
> +	if ((file->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
> +		i_readcount_dec(file->f_inode);
> +	} else if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> +		put_write_access(file->f_inode);
> +		__mnt_drop_write(file->f_path.mnt);
> +	}
> +}
> +
>  extern int do_pipe_flags(int *, int);
>  
>  extern ssize_t kernel_read(struct file *, void *, size_t, loff_t *);

Looks good to me. I like the new helper.

In addition to Al's comment about which header this should go in, it
might also be good to put a kerneldoc comment over it.

Al, did you want to take this via your tree or do you want me to take it
via the filelocks tree?

Thanks,
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Re: [PATCH] locks: fix TOCTOU race when granting write lease

[Al Viro]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 10:18:21AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > +static inline void put_file_access(struct file *file)
> > > +{
> > > +     if ((file->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
> > > +             i_readcount_dec(file->f_inode);
> > > +     } else if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> > > +             put_write_access(file->f_inode);
> > > +             __mnt_drop_write(file->f_path.mnt);
> > > +     }
> > > +}
> >
> > What's the point of having it in linux/fs.h instead of internal.h?
> 
> No reason. Overlooked.
> Do you need me to re-send or will you move it to internal.h yourself?

Resend, please...

Re: [PATCH] locks: fix TOCTOU race when granting write lease

[Amir Goldstein]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 2:21 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2022-08-14 at 18:23 +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Thread A trying to acquire a write lease checks the value of i_readcount
> > and i_writecount in check_conflicting_open() to verify that its own fd
> > is the only fd referencing the file.
> >
> > Thread B trying to open the file for read will call break_lease() in
> > do_dentry_open() before incrementing i_readcount, which leaves a small
> > window where thread A can acquire the write lease and then thread B
> > completes the open of the file for read without breaking the write lease
> > that was acquired by thread A.
> >
> > Fix this race by incrementing i_readcount before checking for existing
> > leases, same as the case with i_writecount.
> >
>
> Nice catch.
>
> > Use a helper put_file_access() to decrement i_readcount or i_writecount
> > in do_dentry_open() and __fput().
> >
> > Fixes: 387e3746d01c ("locks: eliminate false positive conflicts for write lease")
> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > This fixes a race I found during code audit - I do not have a reproducer
> > for it.
> >
> > I ran the fstests I found for locks and leases:
> > generic/131 generic/478 generic/504 generic/571
> > and the LTP fcntl tests.
> >
> > Encountered this warning with generic/131, but I also see it on
> > current master:
> >
> >  =============================
> >  WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> >  5.19.0-xfstests-14277-gbd6ab3ef4e93 #966 Not tainted
> >  -----------------------------
> >  include/net/sock.h:592 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> >
> >  other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> >
> >  rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
> >  5 locks held by locktest/3996:
> >   #0: ffff88800be1d7a0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __sock_release+0x25/0x97
> >   #1: ffff88800909ce00 (sk_lock-AF_INET){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: tcp_close+0x14/0x60
> >   #2: ffff888006847cc8 (&h->lhash2[i].lock){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: inet_unhash+0x3a/0xcf
> >   #3: ffffffff82a8ac18 (reuseport_lock){+...}-{2:2}, at: reuseport_detach_sock+0x17/0xb8
> >   #4: ffff88800909d0b0 (clock-AF_INET){++..}-{2:2}, at: bpf_sk_reuseport_detach+0x1b/0x85
> >
> >  stack backtrace:
> >  CPU: 1 PID: 3996 Comm: locktest Not tainted 5.19.0-xfstests-14277-gbd6ab3ef4e93 #966
> >  Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.13.0-1ubuntu1.1 04/01/2014
> >  Call Trace:
> >   <TASK>
> >   dump_stack_lvl+0x45/0x5d
> >   bpf_sk_reuseport_detach+0x5c/0x85
> >   reuseport_detach_sock+0x65/0xb8
> >   inet_unhash+0x55/0xcf
> >   tcp_set_state+0xb3/0x10d
> >   ? mark_lock.part.0+0x30/0x101
> >   __tcp_close+0x26/0x32d
> >   tcp_close+0x20/0x60
> >   inet_release+0x50/0x64
> >   __sock_release+0x32/0x97
> >   sock_close+0x14/0x1b
> >   __fput+0x118/0x1eb
> >
> >
> > Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Amir.
> >
> >  fs/file_table.c    |  7 +------
> >  fs/open.c          | 11 ++++-------
> >  include/linux/fs.h | 10 ++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/file_table.c b/fs/file_table.c
> > index 99c6796c9f28..dd88701e54a9 100644
> > --- a/fs/file_table.c
> > +++ b/fs/file_table.c
> > @@ -324,12 +324,7 @@ static void __fput(struct file *file)
> >       }
> >       fops_put(file->f_op);
> >       put_pid(file->f_owner.pid);
> > -     if ((mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ)
> > -             i_readcount_dec(inode);
> > -     if (mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> > -             put_write_access(inode);
> > -             __mnt_drop_write(mnt);
> > -     }
> > +     put_file_access(file);
> >       dput(dentry);
> >       if (unlikely(mode & FMODE_NEED_UNMOUNT))
> >               dissolve_on_fput(mnt);
> > diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
> > index 8a813fa5ca56..a98572585815 100644
> > --- a/fs/open.c
> > +++ b/fs/open.c
> > @@ -840,7 +840,9 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
> >               return 0;
> >       }
> >
> > -     if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE && !special_file(inode->i_mode)) {
> > +     if ((f->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
> > +             i_readcount_inc(inode);
> > +     } else if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE && !special_file(inode->i_mode)) {
> >               error = get_write_access(inode);
> >               if (unlikely(error))
> >                       goto cleanup_file;
> > @@ -880,8 +882,6 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
> >                       goto cleanup_all;
> >       }
> >       f->f_mode |= FMODE_OPENED;
> > -     if ((f->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ)
> > -             i_readcount_inc(inode);
> >       if ((f->f_mode & FMODE_READ) &&
> >            likely(f->f_op->read || f->f_op->read_iter))
> >               f->f_mode |= FMODE_CAN_READ;
> > @@ -935,10 +935,7 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
> >       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(error > 0))
> >               error = -EINVAL;
> >       fops_put(f->f_op);
> > -     if (f->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> > -             put_write_access(inode);
> > -             __mnt_drop_write(f->f_path.mnt);
> > -     }
> > +     put_file_access(f);
> >  cleanup_file:
> >       path_put(&f->f_path);
> >       f->f_path.mnt = NULL;
> > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > index 9eced4cc286e..8bc04852c3da 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -3000,6 +3000,16 @@ static inline void i_readcount_inc(struct inode *inode)
> >       return;
> >  }
> >  #endif
> > +static inline void put_file_access(struct file *file)
> > +{
> > +     if ((file->f_mode & (FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE)) == FMODE_READ) {
> > +             i_readcount_dec(file->f_inode);
> > +     } else if (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITER) {
> > +             put_write_access(file->f_inode);
> > +             __mnt_drop_write(file->f_path.mnt);
> > +     }
> > +}
> > +
> >  extern int do_pipe_flags(int *, int);
> >
> >  extern ssize_t kernel_read(struct file *, void *, size_t, loff_t *);
>
> Looks good to me. I like the new helper.
>
> In addition to Al's comment about which header this should go in, it
> might also be good to put a kerneldoc comment over it.
>

I'm sorry, I couldn't come up with a good description of
this arbitrary helper and I don't think this is so important
for an internal helper like this one.

For now, I will post without the kerneldoc.
If you disagree, please provide a description.

Thanks,
Amir.