Re: [PATCH 3.2 38/52] Btrfs: fix race when listing an inode's xattrs

[Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>]

On 11/26/2015 12:39 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 23:11 +0000, Luis Henriques wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:33:59PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> 3.2.74-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
>>>
>>> commit f1cd1f0b7d1b5d4aaa5711e8f4e4898b0045cb6d upstream.
>>>
>>> When listing a inode's xattrs we have a time window where we race against
>>> a concurrent operation for adding a new hard link for our inode that makes
>>> us not return any xattr to user space. In order for this to happen, the
>>> first xattr of our inode needs to be at slot 0 of a leaf and the previous
>>> leaf must still have room for an inode ref (or extref) item, and this can
>>> happen because an inode's listxattrs callback does not lock the inode's
>>> i_mutex (nor does the VFS does it for us), but adding a hard link to an
>>> inode makes the VFS lock the inode's i_mutex before calling the inode's
>>> link callback.
>>>
>>> If we have the following leafs:
>>>
>>>                Leaf X (has N items)                    Leaf Y
>>>
>>>  [ ... (257 INODE_ITEM 0) (257 INODE_REF 256) ]  [ (257 XATTR_ITEM 12345), ... ]
>>>            slot N - 2         slot N - 1              slot 0
>>>
>>> The race illustrated by the following sequence diagram is possible:
>>>
>>>        CPU 1                                               CPU 2
>>>
>>>   btrfs_listxattr()
>>>
>>>     searches for key (257 XATTR_ITEM 0)
>>>
>>>     gets path with path->nodes[0] == leaf X
>>>     and path->slots[0] == N
>>>
>>>     because path->slots[0] is >=
>>>     btrfs_header_nritems(leaf X), it calls
>>>     btrfs_next_leaf()
>>>
>>>     btrfs_next_leaf()
>>>       releases the path
>>>
>>>                                                    adds key (257 INODE_REF 666)
>>>                                                    to the end of leaf X (slot N),
>>>                                                    and leaf X now has N + 1 items
>>>
>>>       searches for the key (257 INODE_REF 256),
>>>       with path->keep_locks == 1, because that
>>>       is the last key it saw in leaf X before
>>>       releasing the path
>>>
>>>       ends up at leaf X again and it verifies
>>>       that the key (257 INODE_REF 256) is no
>>>       longer the last key in leaf X, so it
>>>       returns with path->nodes[0] == leaf X
>>>       and path->slots[0] == N, pointing to
>>>       the new item with key (257 INODE_REF 666)
>>>
>>>     btrfs_listxattr's loop iteration sees that
>>>     the type of the key pointed by the path is
>>>     different from the type BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY
>>>     and so it breaks the loop and stops looking
>>>     for more xattr items
>>>       --> the application doesn't get any xattr
>>>           listed for our inode
>>>
>>> So fix this by breaking the loop only if the key's type is greater than
>>> BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY and skip the current key if its type is smaller.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
>>> [bwh: Backported to 3.2: s/found_key\.type/btrfs_key_type(\&found_key)/]
>>
>> Actually, in my backport to 3.16 I decided to keep the usage of
>> 'found_key.type' instead, as the usage of btrfs_key_type() has been
>> dropped with commit 962a298f3511 ("btrfs: kill the key type accessor
>> helpers").
> [...]
> 
> OK, that makes sense.  btrfs in 3.2 is pretty inconsistent about using
> btrfs_key_type() anyway.

Using the type field directly, instead of the accessor, is perfectly
safe (the field is an u8 so no worries about endianness conversions
unlike, other field of struct btrfs_key which are u64s).

> 
> Ben.
> 
>