From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752814Ab1GRTrK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:47:10 -0400
Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:37880 "EHLO
	ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750829Ab1GRTrI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:47:08 -0400
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 20:47:03 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: fix race in rcu lookup of pruned dentry
Message-ID: <20110718194703.GI11013@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20110717231610.GR11013@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFxEGKgx+_xy+Lnt=84wRzE9TyznL3VCNSqWs7HC_H35_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.00.1107171641130.1274@sister.anvils>
 <20110718002524.GU11013@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <alpine.LSU.2.00.1107171740260.1327@sister.anvils>
 <20110718020818.GW11013@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFwXgcWxvAz7w1f_HYyzdm9b9EBJfrWhF1FW7EA3zpbJPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFxKRw8NxcHKzsSeCX3ud6eDrcQvAX+LMQOUT4p5TPLp5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.00.1107181135170.2722@sister.anvils>
 <CA+55aFycZL9zAE_Qvq9LM=HpugiDuKSjdRhKG1zi=H4LnNvhVQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFycZL9zAE_Qvq9LM=HpugiDuKSjdRhKG1zi=H4LnNvhVQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:33:28PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Which just makes me suspect that it's *another* case of bug in the
> dentry_kill() sequence. I think the dentry_rcuwalk_barrier() thing is
> crap: it doesn't *cover* the d_inode change with the write lock, it
> just puts that "barrier" there, which is bogus. You can get a
> successful read of the changed inode without ever failing the read
> lock sequence!

Huh?  We do __d_drop() in there, and do that before we start messing
with ->d_inode.  And barrier here will make sure that anything that
might have found this sucker prior to that __d_drop() will fail
->d_seq check - it bumps ->d_seq by 2...

As long as ->d_inode change happens under ->d_lock and ->d_seq is
bumped along with that change, we should be fine, no?