Re: [PATCH 6/6 v9] nfsd: Allows user un-mounting filesystem where nfsd exports base on

From: Kinglong Mee <kinglongmee-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Al Viro <viro-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields"
	<bfields-uC3wQj2KruNg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
	"linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org"
	<linux-nfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	NeilBrown <neilb-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>,
	Trond Myklebust
	<trond.myklebust-7I+n7zu2hftEKMMhf/gKZA@public.gmane.org>,
	kinglongmee-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6 v9] nfsd: Allows user un-mounting filesystem where nfsd exports base on
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:15:41 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55DF9A1D.5020209@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150819045059.GB18890-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>

On 8/19/2015 12:50, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 03:23:59PM +0800, Kinglong Mee wrote:
>> @@ -181,7 +191,11 @@ static int expkey_show(struct seq_file *m,
>>  	if (test_bit(CACHE_VALID, &h->flags) && 
>>  	    !test_bit(CACHE_NEGATIVE, &h->flags)) {
>>  		seq_printf(m, " ");
>> -		seq_path(m, &ek->ek_path, "\\ \t\n");
>> +		if (legitimize_mntget(ek->ek_path.mnt)) {
>> +			seq_path(m, &ek->ek_path, "\\ \t\n");
>> +			mntput(ek->ek_path.mnt);
>> +		} else
>> +			seq_printf(m, "Dir-unmounting");
> 
> IDGI...  What locking environment do you have here?  Note that use
> of mnt_add_count(mnt, -1) in MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT case in __legitimize_mnt()
> is OK only because we
> 	a) are under rcu_read_lock() and
> 	b) have synchronize_rcu() in namespace_unlock().

There are not any locking exist is this patch site.
Thanks for your comments about the mnt_add_count() following.

I want add rcu_read_lock in legitimize_mntget as,

struct vfsmount *legitimize_mntget(struct vfsmount *vfsmnt)
{
      rcu_read_lock();
	......
      rcu_read_unlock();
      return vfsmnt;
}

Is it OK?

> 
> You don't seem to be under rcu_read_lock() here, so what's to stop that
> from racing with the final mntput()?  IOW, suppose that on the first
> pass through legitimize_mntget() you read mount_lock, bump refcount,
> recheck the lock and notice that it has been touched.  You proceed to
> decrement refcount.  Fine, except that what would've been the final
> mntput() has just noticed that refcount hadn't reached 0 and buggered
> off.  And in the meanwhile, MNT_UMOUNT had been set.  Now you decrement
> the refcount to zero, notice that MNT_UMOUNT and go away.  Have a nice
> leak...
> 
> The only reason why we are able to get away with mnt_add_count(mnt, -1) in
> that specific case in legitimize_mnt() is that MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT must have
> been set after we'd got rcu_read_lock() (otherwise we would've either hit
> a mismatch on mount_lock before incrementing refcount or wouldn't have
> run into that vfsmount at all) and thus we _know_ that the process that
> has set MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT couldn't have passed through synchronize_rcu()
> in namespace_unlock(), so it couldn't reach mntput_no_expire() until our
> caller does rcu_read_unlock() and we are free to decrement the refcount and
> leave - we won't be dropping the last reference here.
> 
> Without MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT the callers of __legitimize_mnt() must use mntput()
> to drop the mistakenly acquired reference.  Exactly because they can't
> rely on that syncronize_rcu() delaying the final mntput().
> 
>> @@ -664,7 +696,12 @@ static int svc_export_show(struct seq_file *m,
>>  		return 0;
>>  	}
>>  	exp = container_of(h, struct svc_export, h);
>> -	seq_path(m, &exp->ex_path, " \t\n\\");
>> +	if (legitimize_mntget(exp->ex_path.mnt)) {
>> +		seq_path(m, &exp->ex_path, " \t\n\\");
>> +		mntput(exp->ex_path.mnt);
>> +	} else
>> +		seq_printf(m, "Dir-unmounting");
> 
> Ditto.  And grabbing/dropping references here seems to be an overkill...

Do you mean that calling seq_path without legitimize_mntget here ?
But the mnt is without reference to vfsmnt, only a fs_pin many times.

> 
>> @@ -819,6 +867,12 @@ exp_find_key(struct cache_detail *cd, struct auth_domain *clp, int fsid_type,
>>  	err = cache_check(cd, &ek->h, reqp);
>>  	if (err)
>>  		return ERR_PTR(err);
>> +
>> +	if (!legitimize_mntget(ek->ek_path.mnt)) {
>> +		cache_put(&ek->h, ek->cd);
>> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>> +	}
> 
> Ditto.
> 
>> @@ -842,6 +896,8 @@ exp_get_by_name(struct cache_detail *cd, struct auth_domain *clp,
>>  	err = cache_check(cd, &exp->h, reqp);
>>  	if (err)
>>  		return ERR_PTR(err);
>> +
>> +	mntget(exp->ex_path.mnt);
> 
> What's to make that mntget() legitimate?

The mnt has the reference to vfsmnt here, so just using mntget is safe.

> 
>>  static inline struct svc_export *exp_get(struct svc_export *exp)
>>  {
>>  	cache_get(&exp->h);
>> +	mntget(exp->ex_path.mnt);
> 
> Ditto.
> 

The mnt has the reference, Same as above.

thanks,
Kinglong Mee
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html