From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>,
Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:20:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210120102045.GD1236412@miu.piliscsaba.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxiFoQhrMbs91ZUNXqbJUXb5XRBgRrcq1rmChLKQGKg5xg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 08:47:41AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:36 AM Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> wrote:
> >
> > The function ovl_dir_real_file() currently uses the semaphore of the
> > inode to synchronize write to the upperfile cache field.
>
> Although the inode lock is a rw_sem it is referred to as the "inode lock"
> and you also left semaphore in the commit subject.
> No need to re-post. This can be fixed on commit.
>
> >
> > However, this function will get called by ovl_ioctl_set_flags(), which
> > utilizes the inode semaphore too. In this case ovl_dir_real_file() will
> > try to claim a lock that is owned by a function in its call stack, which
> > won't get released before ovl_dir_real_file() returns.
> >
> > Define a dedicated semaphore for the upperfile cache, so that the
> > deadlock won't happen.
> >
> > Fixes: 61536bed2149 ("ovl: support [S|G]ETFLAGS and FS[S|G]ETXATTR ioctls for directories")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.10
> > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> > ---
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Fixed missing replacement in error handling path.
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Use mutex instead of semaphore.
> >
> > fs/overlayfs/readdir.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > index 01620ebae1bd..3980f9982f34 100644
> > --- a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
> > @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct ovl_dir_file {
> > struct list_head *cursor;
> > struct file *realfile;
> > struct file *upperfile;
> > + struct mutex upperfile_mutex;
>
> That's a very specific name.
> This mutex protects members of struct ovl_dir_file, which could evolve
> into struct ovl_file one day (because no reason to cache only dir upper file),
> so I would go with a more generic name, but let's leave it to Miklos to decide.
>
> He could have a different idea altogether for fixing this bug.
How about this (untested) patch?
It's a cleanup as well as a fix, but maybe we should separate the cleanup from
the fix...
Thanks,
Miklos
---
fs/overlayfs/readdir.c | 23 +++++++----------------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
+++ b/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c
@@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ struct file *ovl_dir_real_file(const str
struct ovl_dir_file *od = file->private_data;
struct dentry *dentry = file->f_path.dentry;
- struct file *realfile = od->realfile;
+ struct file *old, *realfile = od->realfile;
if (!OVL_TYPE_UPPER(ovl_path_type(dentry)))
return want_upper ? NULL : realfile;
@@ -874,29 +874,20 @@ struct file *ovl_dir_real_file(const str
* Need to check if we started out being a lower dir, but got copied up
*/
if (!od->is_upper) {
- struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
-
realfile = READ_ONCE(od->upperfile);
if (!realfile) {
struct path upperpath;
ovl_path_upper(dentry, &upperpath);
realfile = ovl_dir_open_realfile(file, &upperpath);
+ if (IS_ERR(realfile))
+ return realfile;
- inode_lock(inode);
- if (!od->upperfile) {
- if (IS_ERR(realfile)) {
- inode_unlock(inode);
- return realfile;
- }
- smp_store_release(&od->upperfile, realfile);
- } else {
- /* somebody has beaten us to it */
- if (!IS_ERR(realfile))
- fput(realfile);
- realfile = od->upperfile;
+ old = cmpxchg_release(&od->upperfile, NULL, realfile);
+ if (old) {
+ fput(realfile);
+ realfile = old;
}
- inode_unlock(inode);
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-20 11:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-05 0:36 [PATCH v3] ovl: use a dedicated semaphore for dir upperfile caching Icenowy Zheng
2021-01-05 6:47 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-01-16 14:51 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-01-20 10:20 ` Miklos Szeredi [this message]
2021-01-20 11:22 ` Amir Goldstein
2021-01-21 3:43 ` Icenowy Zheng
2021-01-21 8:07 ` Miklos Szeredi
2021-01-22 5:17 ` Icenowy Zheng
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=20210120102045.GD1236412@miu.piliscsaba.redhat.com \
--to=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=icenowy@aosc.io \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.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).