From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: Yang Erkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>,
trondmy@kernel.org, anna@kernel.org, chuck.lever@oracle.com
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
yangerkun@huaweicloud.com, lilingfeng3@huawei.com,
zhangjian496@h-partners.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] nfs: use nfsi->rwsem to protect traversal of the file lock list
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2026 10:09:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dcf0b02002857a6be502e372ebb3e175412d7184.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260226012203.3962997-1-yangerkun@huawei.com>
On Thu, 2026-02-26 at 09:22 +0800, Yang Erkun wrote:
> Lingfeng identified a bug and suggested two solutions, but both appear
> to have issues.
>
> Generally, we cannot release flc_lock while iterating over the file lock
> list to avoid use-after-free (UAF) problems with file locks. However,
> functions like nfs_delegation_claim_locks and nfs4_reclaim_locks cannot
> adhere to this rule because recover_lock or nfs4_lock_delegation_recall
> may take a long time. To resolve this, NFS switches to using nfsi->rwsem
> for the same protection, and nfs_reclaim_locks follows this approach.
> Although nfs_delegation_claim_locks uses so_delegreturn_mutex instead,
> this is inadequate since a single inode can have multiple nfs4_state
> instances. Therefore, the fix is to also use nfsi->rwsem in this case.
>
> Furthermore, after commit c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range
> lock must be atomic with the stateid update"), the functions
> nfs4_locku_done and nfs4_lock_done also break this rule because they
> call locks_lock_inode_wait without holding nfsi->rwsem. Simply adding
> this protection could cause many deadlocks, so instead, the call to
> locks_lock_inode_wait is moved into _nfs4_proc_setlk. Regarding the bug
> fixed by commit c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range
> lock must be atomic with the stateid update"), it has been resolved
> after commit 0460253913e5 ("NFSv4: nfs4_do_open() is incorrectly triggering
> state recovery") because all slots are drained before calling
> nfs4_do_reclaim, which prevents concurrent stateid changes along this path.
> Also, nfs_delegation_claim_locks does not cause this concurrency either
> since when _nfs4_proc_setlk is called with NFS_DELEGATED_STATE, no RPC is
> sent, so nfs4_lock_done is not called. Therefore,
> nfs4_lock_delegation_recall from nfs_delegation_claim_locks is the first
> time the stateid is set.
>
> Reported-by: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@huawei.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250419085709.1452492-1-lilingfeng3@huawei.com/
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250715030559.2906634-1-lilingfeng3@huawei.com/
> Fixes: c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range lock must be atomic with the stateid update")
> Signed-off-by: Yang Erkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/nfs/delegation.c | 9 ++++++++-
> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> include/linux/nfs_xdr.h | 1 -
> 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/delegation.c b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
> index 122fb3f14ffb..9546d2195c25 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/delegation.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
> @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ int nfs4_check_delegation(struct inode *inode, fmode_t type)
> static int nfs_delegation_claim_locks(struct nfs4_state *state, const nfs4_stateid *stateid)
> {
> struct inode *inode = state->inode;
> + struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
> struct file_lock *fl;
> struct file_lock_context *flctx = locks_inode_context(inode);
> struct list_head *list;
> @@ -182,6 +183,9 @@ static int nfs_delegation_claim_locks(struct nfs4_state *state, const nfs4_state
> goto out;
>
> list = &flctx->flc_posix;
> +
> + /* Guard against reclaim and new lock/unlock calls */
> + down_write(&nfsi->rwsem);
> spin_lock(&flctx->flc_lock);
> restart:
> for_each_file_lock(fl, list) {
> @@ -189,8 +193,10 @@ static int nfs_delegation_claim_locks(struct nfs4_state *state, const nfs4_state
> continue;
> spin_unlock(&flctx->flc_lock);
> status = nfs4_lock_delegation_recall(fl, state, stateid);
> - if (status < 0)
> + if (status < 0) {
> + up_write(&nfsi->rwsem);
> goto out;
> + }
> spin_lock(&flctx->flc_lock);
> }
> if (list == &flctx->flc_posix) {
> @@ -198,6 +204,7 @@ static int nfs_delegation_claim_locks(struct nfs4_state *state, const nfs4_state
> goto restart;
> }
> spin_unlock(&flctx->flc_lock);
> + up_write(&nfsi->rwsem);
> out:
> return status;
> }
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> index 91bcf67bd743..9d6fbca8798b 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> @@ -7076,7 +7076,6 @@ static void nfs4_locku_done(struct rpc_task *task, void *data)
> switch (task->tk_status) {
> case 0:
> renew_lease(calldata->server, calldata->timestamp);
> - locks_lock_inode_wait(calldata->lsp->ls_state->inode, &calldata->fl);
> if (nfs4_update_lock_stateid(calldata->lsp,
> &calldata->res.stateid))
> break;
> @@ -7344,11 +7343,6 @@ static void nfs4_lock_done(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
> case 0:
> renew_lease(NFS_SERVER(d_inode(data->ctx->dentry)),
> data->timestamp);
> - if (data->arg.new_lock && !data->cancelled) {
> - data->fl.c.flc_flags &= ~(FL_SLEEP | FL_ACCESS);
> - if (locks_lock_inode_wait(lsp->ls_state->inode, &data->fl) < 0)
> - goto out_restart;
> - }
> if (data->arg.new_lock_owner != 0) {
> nfs_confirm_seqid(&lsp->ls_seqid, 0);
> nfs4_stateid_copy(&lsp->ls_stateid, &data->res.stateid);
> @@ -7459,11 +7453,10 @@ static int _nfs4_do_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock *f
> msg.rpc_argp = &data->arg;
> msg.rpc_resp = &data->res;
> task_setup_data.callback_data = data;
> - if (recovery_type > NFS_LOCK_NEW) {
> - if (recovery_type == NFS_LOCK_RECLAIM)
> - data->arg.reclaim = NFS_LOCK_RECLAIM;
> - } else
> - data->arg.new_lock = 1;
> +
> + if (recovery_type == NFS_LOCK_RECLAIM)
> + data->arg.reclaim = NFS_LOCK_RECLAIM;
> +
> task = rpc_run_task(&task_setup_data);
> if (IS_ERR(task))
> return PTR_ERR(task);
> @@ -7573,6 +7566,13 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state *state, int cmd, struct file_lock
> up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
> mutex_unlock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
> status = _nfs4_do_setlk(state, cmd, request, NFS_LOCK_NEW);
> + if (status)
> + goto out;
> +
> + down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
> + request->c.flc_flags &= ~(FL_SLEEP | FL_ACCESS);
> + status = locks_lock_inode_wait(state->inode, request);
> + up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
> out:
> request->c.flc_flags = flags;
> return status;
> diff --git a/include/linux/nfs_xdr.h b/include/linux/nfs_xdr.h
> index ff1f12aa73d2..9599ad15c3ad 100644
> --- a/include/linux/nfs_xdr.h
> +++ b/include/linux/nfs_xdr.h
> @@ -580,7 +580,6 @@ struct nfs_lock_args {
> struct nfs_lowner lock_owner;
> unsigned char block : 1;
> unsigned char reclaim : 1;
> - unsigned char new_lock : 1;
> unsigned char new_lock_owner : 1;
> };
>
Nice work!
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-09 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-26 1:22 [RFC PATCH] nfs: use nfsi->rwsem to protect traversal of the file lock list Yang Erkun
2026-02-26 8:34 ` yangerkun
2026-03-09 13:03 ` yangerkun
2026-03-09 14:09 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2026-03-10 1:33 ` yangerkun
2026-03-09 14:12 ` 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=dcf0b02002857a6be502e372ebb3e175412d7184.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=anna@kernel.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=lilingfeng3@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@kernel.org \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=yangerkun@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=zhangjian496@h-partners.com \
/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