Re: [PATCH 4/7] vfs: Add superblock notifications

David Howells
2019-05-29T12:58:49Z

Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:

> It might make sense to require that the path points to the root inode
> of the superblock? That way you wouldn't be able to do this on a bind
> mount that exposes part of a shared filesystem to a container.

Why prevent that? It doesn't prevent the container denizen from watching a
bind mount that exposes the root of a shared filesystem into a container.

It probably makes sense to permit the LSM to rule on whether a watch may be
emplaced, however.

> > + ret = add_watch_to_object(watch, s->s_watchers);
> > + if (ret == 0) {
> > + spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> > + s->s_count++;
> > + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>
> Why do watches hold references on the superblock they're watching?

Fair point. It was necessary at one point, but I don't think it is now. I'll
see if I can remove it. Note that it doesn't stop a superblock from being
unmounted and destroyed.

> > + }
> > + }
> > + up_write(&s->s_umount);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + kfree(watch);
> > + } else if (s->s_watchers) {
>
> This should probably have something like a READ_ONCE() for clarity?

Note that I think I'll rearrange this to:

} else {
ret = -EBADSLT;
if (s->s_watchers) {
down_write(&s->s_umount);
ret = remove_watch_from_object(s->s_watchers, wqueue,
s->s_unique_id, false);
up_write(&s->s_umount);
}
}

I'm not sure READ_ONCE() is necessary, since s_watchers can only be
instantiated once and the watch list then persists until the superblock is
deactivated. Furthermore, by the time deactivate_locked_super() is called, we
can't be calling sb_notify() on it as it's become inaccessible.

So if we see s->s_watchers as non-NULL, we should not see anything different
inside the lock. In fact, I should be able to rewrite the above to:

} else {
ret = -EBADSLT;
wlist = s->s_watchers;
if (wlist) {
down_write(&s->s_umount);
ret = remove_watch_from_object(wlist, wqueue,
s->s_unique_id, false);
up_write(&s->s_umount);
}
}

David