From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: jeff.layton@primarydata.com, bfields@fieldses.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, william@gandi.net
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "nfs4: have do_vfs_lock take an inode pointer" has been added to the 4.1-stable tree
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 10:42:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1445622122172245@kroah.com> (raw)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
nfs4: have do_vfs_lock take an inode pointer
to the 4.1-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
nfs4-have-do_vfs_lock-take-an-inode-pointer.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.1 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>From 83bfff23e9ed19f37c4ef0bba84e75bd88e5cf21 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 06:43:03 -0400
Subject: nfs4: have do_vfs_lock take an inode pointer
From: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
commit 83bfff23e9ed19f37c4ef0bba84e75bd88e5cf21 upstream.
Now that we have file locking helpers that can deal with an inode
instead of a filp, we can change the NFSv4 locking code to use that
instead.
This should fix the case where we have a filp that is closed while flock
or OFD locks are set on it, and the task is signaled so that it doesn't
wait for the LOCKU reply to come in before the filp is freed. At that
point we can end up with a use-after-free with the current code, which
relies on dereferencing the fl_file in the lock request.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>
Reviewed-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Tested-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: William Dauchy <william@gandi.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 16 ++++++++--------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -5367,15 +5367,15 @@ static int nfs4_proc_getlk(struct nfs4_s
return err;
}
-static int do_vfs_lock(struct file *file, struct file_lock *fl)
+static int do_vfs_lock(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *fl)
{
int res = 0;
switch (fl->fl_flags & (FL_POSIX|FL_FLOCK)) {
case FL_POSIX:
- res = posix_lock_file_wait(file, fl);
+ res = posix_lock_inode_wait(inode, fl);
break;
case FL_FLOCK:
- res = flock_lock_file_wait(file, fl);
+ res = flock_lock_inode_wait(inode, fl);
break;
default:
BUG();
@@ -5435,7 +5435,7 @@ static void nfs4_locku_done(struct rpc_t
switch (task->tk_status) {
case 0:
renew_lease(calldata->server, calldata->timestamp);
- do_vfs_lock(calldata->fl.fl_file, &calldata->fl);
+ do_vfs_lock(calldata->lsp->ls_state->inode, &calldata->fl);
if (nfs4_update_lock_stateid(calldata->lsp,
&calldata->res.stateid))
break;
@@ -5543,7 +5543,7 @@ static int nfs4_proc_unlck(struct nfs4_s
mutex_lock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
/* Exclude nfs4_reclaim_open_stateid() - note nesting! */
down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
- if (do_vfs_lock(request->fl_file, request) == -ENOENT) {
+ if (do_vfs_lock(inode, request) == -ENOENT) {
up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
mutex_unlock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
goto out;
@@ -5684,7 +5684,7 @@ static void nfs4_lock_done(struct rpc_ta
data->timestamp);
if (data->arg.new_lock) {
data->fl.fl_flags &= ~(FL_SLEEP | FL_ACCESS);
- if (do_vfs_lock(data->fl.fl_file, &data->fl) < 0) {
+ if (do_vfs_lock(lsp->ls_state->inode, &data->fl) < 0) {
rpc_restart_call_prepare(task);
break;
}
@@ -5926,7 +5926,7 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_
if (status != 0)
goto out;
request->fl_flags |= FL_ACCESS;
- status = do_vfs_lock(request->fl_file, request);
+ status = do_vfs_lock(state->inode, request);
if (status < 0)
goto out;
down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
@@ -5934,7 +5934,7 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_
/* Yes: cache locks! */
/* ...but avoid races with delegation recall... */
request->fl_flags = fl_flags & ~FL_SLEEP;
- status = do_vfs_lock(request->fl_file, request);
+ status = do_vfs_lock(state->inode, request);
up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
goto out;
}
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from jeff.layton@primarydata.com are
queue-4.1/locks-new-helpers-flock_lock_inode_wait-and-posix_lock_inode_wait.patch
queue-4.1/locks-have-flock_lock_file-take-an-inode-pointer-instead-of-a-filp.patch
queue-4.1/locks-inline-posix_lock_file_wait-and-flock_lock_file_wait.patch
queue-4.1/nfs4-have-do_vfs_lock-take-an-inode-pointer.patch
reply other threads:[~2015-10-23 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1445622122172245@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jeff.layton@primarydata.com \
--cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=william@gandi.net \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).