From: Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] locks: close potential race between setlease and open
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:32:03 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130815193203.GT17781@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1376482310-7348-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 08:11:50AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> v2:
> - fix potential double-free of lease if second check finds conflict
> - add smp_mb's to ensure that other CPUs see i_flock changes
>
> v3:
> - remove smp_mb calls. Partial ordering is unlikely to help here.
Forgive me here, I still don't understand. So to simplify massively,
the situation looks like:
setlease open
------------ ------
atomic_read atomic_inc
write i_flock read i_flock
atomic_read
And we want to be sure that either the setlease caller sees the result
of the atomic_inc, or the opener sees the result of the write to
i_flock.
As an example, suppose the above steps happen in the order:
atomic_read
write i_flock
atomic_read
atomic_inc
read i_flock
How do we know that the read of i_flock at the last step reflects the
latest value of i_flock? For example, couldn't the write still be stuck
in first CPU's cache?
--b.
>
> As Al Viro points out, there is an unlikely, but possible race between
> opening a file and setting a lease on it. generic_add_lease is done with
> the i_lock held, but the inode->i_flock check in break_lease is
> lockless. It's possible for another task doing an open to do the entire
> pathwalk and call break_lease between the point where generic_add_lease
> checks for a conflicting open and adds the lease to the list. If this
> occurs, we can end up with a lease set on the file with a conflicting
> open.
>
> To guard against that, check again for a conflicting open after adding
> the lease to the i_flock list. If the above race occurs, then we can
> simply unwind the lease setting and return -EAGAIN.
>
> Because we take dentry references and acquire write access on the file
> before calling break_lease, we know that if the i_flock list is empty
> when the open caller goes to check it then the necessary refcounts have
> already been incremented. Thus the additional check for a conflicting
> open will see that there is one and the setlease call will fail.
>
> Cc: Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
> Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index b27a300..a99adec 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -652,15 +652,18 @@ static void locks_insert_lock(struct file_lock **pos, struct file_lock *fl)
> locks_insert_global_locks(fl);
> }
>
> -/*
> - * Delete a lock and then free it.
> - * Wake up processes that are blocked waiting for this lock,
> - * notify the FS that the lock has been cleared and
> - * finally free the lock.
> +/**
> + * locks_delete_lock - Delete a lock and then free it.
> + * @thisfl_p: pointer that points to the fl_next field of the previous
> + * inode->i_flock list entry
> + *
> + * Unlink a lock from all lists and free the namespace reference, but don't
> + * free it yet. Wake up processes that are blocked waiting for this lock and
> + * notify the FS that the lock has been cleared.
> *
> * Must be called with the i_lock held!
> */
> -static void locks_delete_lock(struct file_lock **thisfl_p)
> +static void locks_unlink_lock(struct file_lock **thisfl_p)
> {
> struct file_lock *fl = *thisfl_p;
>
> @@ -675,6 +678,18 @@ static void locks_delete_lock(struct file_lock **thisfl_p)
> }
>
> locks_wake_up_blocks(fl);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Unlink a lock from all lists and free it.
> + *
> + * Must be called with i_lock held!
> + */
> +static void locks_delete_lock(struct file_lock **thisfl_p)
> +{
> + struct file_lock *fl = *thisfl_p;
> +
> + locks_unlink_lock(thisfl_p);
> locks_free_lock(fl);
> }
>
> @@ -1455,6 +1470,32 @@ int fcntl_getlease(struct file *filp)
> return type;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * check_conflicting_open - see if the given dentry points to a file that has
> + * an existing open that would conflict with the desired lease.
> + *
> + * @dentry: dentry to check
> + * @arg: type of lease that we're trying to acquire
> + *
> + * Check to see if there's an existing open fd on this file that would
> + * conflict with the lease we're trying to set.
> + */
> +static int
> +check_conflicting_open(const struct dentry *dentry, const long arg)
> +{
> + int ret = 0;
> + struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
> +
> + if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) > 0))
> + return -EAGAIN;
> +
> + if ((arg == F_WRLCK) && ((d_count(dentry) > 1) ||
> + (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
> + ret = -EAGAIN;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static int generic_add_lease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **flp)
> {
> struct file_lock *fl, **before, **my_before = NULL, *lease;
> @@ -1464,12 +1505,8 @@ static int generic_add_lease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **flp
>
> lease = *flp;
>
> - error = -EAGAIN;
> - if ((arg == F_RDLCK) && (atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount) > 0))
> - goto out;
> - if ((arg == F_WRLCK)
> - && ((d_count(dentry) > 1)
> - || (atomic_read(&inode->i_count) > 1)))
> + error = check_conflicting_open(dentry, arg);
> + if (error)
> goto out;
>
> /*
> @@ -1514,8 +1551,16 @@ static int generic_add_lease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **flp
> goto out;
>
> locks_insert_lock(before, lease);
> - return 0;
>
> + /*
> + * The check in break_lease() is lockless. It's possible for another
> + * open to race in after we did the earlier check for a conflicting
> + * open but before the lease was inserted. Check again for a
> + * conflicting open and cancel the lease if there is one.
> + */
> + error = check_conflicting_open(dentry, arg);
> + if (error)
> + locks_unlink_lock(flp);
> out:
> return error;
> }
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-15 19:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-08 19:07 [PATCH] locks: close potential race between setlease and open Jeff Layton
2013-08-14 12:11 ` [PATCH v3] " Jeff Layton
2013-08-15 19:32 ` Bruce Fields [this message]
2013-08-15 19:43 ` Jeff Layton
2013-08-15 20:30 ` Bruce Fields
2013-08-15 20:44 ` memory barriers in flock (Re: [PATCH v3] locks: close potential race between setlease and open) David Howells
2013-08-15 21:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-08-16 12:09 ` Jeff Layton
2013-08-19 13:31 ` Bruce Fields
2013-08-16 14:49 ` [PATCH v4] locks: close potential race between setlease and open Jeff Layton
2013-08-19 13:34 ` Bruce Fields
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=20130815193203.GT17781@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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