From: Jean-Louis Biasini <jl.biasini@laposte.net>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
wugyuan@cn.ibm.com, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@aol.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] ecryptfs_lookup_interpose(): lower_dentry->d_inode is not stable
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 21:18:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <073aec80-353a-1568-8f4b-4d9330c0d5b4@laposte.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191113125216.GF26530@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Please can you UNSUBSCRIBE me from this list?
thx
Le 13/11/2019 à 13:52, Al Viro a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 09:01:36AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>> - if (d_really_is_negative(lower_dentry)) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * negative dentry can go positive under us here - its parent is not
>>> + * locked. That's OK and that could happen just as we return from
>>> + * ecryptfs_lookup() anyway. Just need to be careful and fetch
>>> + * ->d_inode only once - it's not stable here.
>>> + */
>>> + lower_inode = READ_ONCE(lower_dentry->d_inode);
>>> +
>>> + if (!lower_inode) {
>>> /* We want to add because we couldn't find in lower */
>>> d_add(dentry, NULL);
>>> return NULL;
>> Sigh!
>>
>> Open coding a human readable macro to solve a subtle lookup race.
>> That doesn't sound like a scalable solution.
>> I have a feeling this is not the last patch we will be seeing along
>> those lines.
>>
>> Seeing that developers already confused about when they should use
>> d_really_is_negative() over d_is_negative() [1] and we probably
>> don't want to add d_really_really_is_negative(), how about
>> applying that READ_ONCE into d_really_is_negative() and
>> re-purpose it as a macro to be used when races with lookup are
>> a concern?
> Would you care to explain what that "fix" would've achieved here,
> considering the fact that barriers are no-ops on UP and this is
> *NOT* an SMP race?
>
> And it's very much present on UP - we have
> fetch ->d_inode into local variable
> do blocking allocation
> check if ->d_inode is NULL now
> if it is not, use the value in local variable and expect it to be non-NULL
>
> That's not a case of missing barriers. At all. And no redefinition of
> d_really_is_negative() is going to help - it can't retroactively affect
> the value explicitly fetched into a local variable some time prior to
> that.
>
> There are other patches dealing with ->d_inode accesses, but they are
> generally not along the same lines. The problem is rarely the same...
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-13 20:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-27 4:42 [PATCH RESEND 1/1] vfs: Really check for inode ptr in lookup_fast Ritesh Harjani
2019-10-15 4:07 ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-10-22 13:38 ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-10-22 14:37 ` Al Viro
2019-10-22 14:50 ` Al Viro
2019-10-22 20:11 ` Al Viro
2019-10-23 11:05 ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-01 23:46 ` Al Viro
2019-11-02 6:17 ` Al Viro
2019-11-02 17:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-02 17:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-02 18:08 ` Al Viro
2019-11-03 14:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-03 16:35 ` [RFC] lookup_one_len_unlocked() lousy calling conventions Al Viro
2019-11-03 18:20 ` Al Viro
2019-11-03 18:51 ` [PATCH][RFC] ecryptfs_lookup_interpose(): lower_dentry->d_inode is not stable Al Viro
2019-11-03 19:03 ` [PATCH][RFC] ecryptfs_lookup_interpose(): lower_dentry->d_parent is not stable either Al Viro
2019-11-13 7:01 ` [PATCH][RFC] ecryptfs_lookup_interpose(): lower_dentry->d_inode is not stable Amir Goldstein
2019-11-13 12:52 ` Al Viro
2019-11-13 16:22 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-11-13 20:18 ` Jean-Louis Biasini [this message]
2019-11-03 17:05 ` [PATCH][RFC] ecryptfs unlink/rmdir breakage (similar to caught in ecryptfs rename last year) Al Viro
2019-11-09 3:13 ` [PATCH][RFC] race in exportfs_decode_fh() Al Viro
2019-11-09 16:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-11-09 18:26 ` Al Viro
2019-11-11 9:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=073aec80-353a-1568-8f4b-4d9330c0d5b4@laposte.net \
--to=jl.biasini@laposte.net \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hsiangkao@aol.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riteshh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wugyuan@cn.ibm.com \
/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).