From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.15 .. and continuation of merge window
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:30:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140611123022.GW18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26914.1402479178@jrobl>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 06:32:58PM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
>
> Al Viro:
> > So I suspect that the right fix is a bit trickier - in addition to check
> > on the fast path (i.e. when trylock gets us the lock on parent), we need
> > to
> > * get rcu_read_lock() before dropping ->d_lock.
> > * check if dentry is already doomed right after taking rcu_read_lock();
> > if not, any value we might see in ->d_parent afterwards will point to object
> > not freed until we drop rcu_read_lock.
> >
> > IOW, something like the delta below. Comments?
>
> I will try testing later.
> For now, as a comment before testing, the patch looks weird for me. It
> checks d_lockref.count twice during d_lockref.lock held. It must be the
> same result, isn't it?
Right you are. So what we need is
* check that thing once, as in your variant (I'd still prefer to
check ->d_lockref.count instead of ->d_flags, but it's the same thing being
tested)
* ... and get rcu_read_lock() *before* dropping ->d_lock.
The former guarantees that the address we are doing trylock on would be that
of a live dentry. The latter makes sure that anything assigned to
dentry->d_parent after we drop ->d_lock will not be freed until we drop
rcu_read_lock.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index be2bea8..e99c6f5 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -532,10 +532,12 @@ static inline struct dentry *lock_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
struct dentry *parent = dentry->d_parent;
if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
return NULL;
+ if (unlikely((int)dentry->d_lockref.count < 0))
+ return NULL;
if (likely(spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)))
return parent;
- spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
rcu_read_lock();
+ spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
again:
parent = ACCESS_ONCE(dentry->d_parent);
spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-11 12:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-08 18:52 Linux 3.15 .. and continuation of merge window Linus Torvalds
2014-06-09 3:30 ` J. R. Okajima
2014-06-11 1:10 ` Al Viro
2014-06-11 9:32 ` J. R. Okajima
2014-06-11 12:30 ` Al Viro [this message]
2014-06-11 17:56 ` J. R. Okajima
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=20140611123022.GW18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=hooanon05g@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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