Re: Linux 2.4.33-rc2

Grant Coady
2006-07-05T01:51:43Z

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 00:07:36 +0200, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 04:27:56PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
>> Willy Tarreau:
>> Fix vfs_unlink/NFS NULL pointer dereference
>
>Marcelo, I'm not sure this one is perfect yet. Today, while packaging
>a lot of files for our distro at work, I came up with a problem where
>deleting a file on NFS, and later simply accessing (read/write/create)
>a file on the NFS file system did block. However, I could kill all the
>offending processes. This was after a full day of mkdir/create/open/
>unlink... (tens of thoudands of those), so it is not much reproduceable.
>
>I could not unmount the NFS anymore, while other users had no problem.
>Rebooting the client solved the problem. I caught an RPC trace (attached),
>not sure if it can help. I must say that I'm also running Trond's NFS
>patches which I suspected first, but with which I never encountered a
>single problem for years.
>
>The fact that the problem appeared during an rm -rf made me think about
>the vfs_unlink() patch. I went to read it again an I'm wondering if we
>have not inserted a new problem (please forgive my ignorance here) :
>
>in 2.4.32, we had the following sequence :
> down(&dir->i_zombie);
> if (may_delete(dir, dentry, 0) != 0) return;
> lock_kernel();
> error = dir->i_op->unlink(dir, dentry);
> unlock_kernel();
> if (!error)
> d_delete(dentry);
> up(&dir->i_zombie);
> if (!error)
> inode_dir_notify(dir, DN_DELETE);
>
>
>int 2.4.33-rc2, we have :
> if (may_delete(dir, dentry, 0) != 0) return;
> inode = dentry->d_inode;
>
> atomic_inc(&inode->i_count);
> double_down(&dir->i_zombie, &inode->i_zombie);
>
> lock_kernel();
> error = dir->i_op->unlink(dir, dentry);
> unlock_kernel();
>
> double_up(&dir->i_zombie, &inode->i_zombie);
> iput(inode);
>
> if (!error) {
> d_delete(dentry);
> inode_dir_notify(dir, DN_DELETE);
> }
>
>What I notice is that in 2.4.32, d_delete(dentry) was performed
>between down(&dir->i_zombie) and up(&dir->i_zombie), while now
>it's completely outside. I wonder if this can cause race conditions
>or not, but at least, I'm sure that we have changed the locking
>sequence, which might have some impact.
>
>Do you think I'm searching in the wrong direction ? I worry a
>bit, because getting a deadlock after only one day, it's a bit
>early :-/
>
Assuming you mean something like the patch below? Doesn't cause any
problems (yet, still testing) like eat files or segfault here as
reported for -rc1 +/- various patches ;)

Cheers,
Grant.
--- linux-2.4.33-rc2/fs/namei.c 2006-06-22 07:27:47.000000000 +1000
+++ linux-2.4.33-rc2b/fs/namei.c 2006-07-05 11:43:19.000000000 +1000
@@ -1497,13 +1497,14 @@
lock_kernel();
error = dir->i_op->unlink(dir, dentry);
unlock_kernel();
+ if (!error)
+ d_delete(dentry);
}
}
double_up(&dir->i_zombie, &inode->i_zombie);
iput(inode);

if (!error) {
- d_delete(dentry);
inode_dir_notify(dir, DN_DELETE);
}
return error;