From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Alexander Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Daniel P . Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>,
"Kate Stewart" <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"Philippe Ombredanne" <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:19:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bmfgvg8w.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180317165859.26200-1-jlayton@kernel.org> (Jeff Layton's message of "Sat, 17 Mar 2018 12:58:59 -0400")
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> writes:
> From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
>
> POSIX mandates that open fds and their associated file locks should be
> preserved across an execve. This works, unless the process is
> multithreaded at the time that execve is called.
Would this perhaps work better if we moved unshare_files to after or
inside of de_thread. That would remove any cases where fd->count is > 1
simply because you are multi-threaded. It would only leave the strange
cases where files struct is shared between different processes.
> In that case, we'll end up unsharing the files_struct but the locks will
> still have their fl_owner set to the address of the old one. Eventually,
> when the other threads die and the last reference to the old
> files_struct is put, any POSIX locks get torn down since it looks like
> a close occurred on them.
>
> The result is that all of your open files will be intact with none of
> the locks you held before execve. The simple answer to this is "use OFD
> locks", but this is a nasty surprise and it violates the spec.
>
> On a successful execve, change ownership of any POSIX file_locks
> associated with the old files_struct to the new one, if we ended up
> swapping it out.
If we can move unshare_files I believe the need for changing the
ownership would go away. Which seems like easier to understand
and simpler code in the end. With fewer surprises.
Eric
> Reported-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/exec.c | 4 +++-
> fs/locks.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/fs.h | 8 ++++++++
> 3 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index 7eb8d21bcab9..35b05376bf78 100644
> --- a/fs/exec.c
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -1812,8 +1812,10 @@ static int do_execveat_common(int fd, struct filename *filename,
> free_bprm(bprm);
> kfree(pathbuf);
> putname(filename);
> - if (displaced)
> + if (displaced) {
> + posix_change_lock_owners(current->files, displaced);
> put_files_struct(displaced);
> + }
> return retval;
>
> out:
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index d6ff4beb70ce..ab428ca8bb11 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -993,6 +993,66 @@ static int flock_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request)
> return error;
> }
>
> +struct posix_change_lock_owners_arg {
> + fl_owner_t old;
> + fl_owner_t new;
> +};
> +
> +static int posix_change_lock_owners_cb(const void *varg, struct file *file,
> + unsigned int fd)
> +{
> + const struct posix_change_lock_owners_arg *arg = varg;
> + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> + struct file_lock_context *ctx;
> + struct file_lock *fl, *tmp;
> +
> + /* If there is no context, then no locks need to be changed */
> + ctx = locks_get_lock_context(inode, F_UNLCK);
> + if (!ctx)
> + return 0;
> +
> + percpu_down_read_preempt_disable(&file_rwsem);
> + spin_lock(&ctx->flc_lock);
> + /* Find the first lock with the old owner */
> + list_for_each_entry(fl, &ctx->flc_posix, fl_list) {
> + if (fl->fl_owner == arg->old)
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe_from(fl, tmp, &ctx->flc_posix, fl_list) {
> + if (fl->fl_owner != arg->old)
> + break;
> +
> + /* This should only be used for normal userland lockmanager */
> + if (fl->fl_lmops) {
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + break;
> + }
> + fl->fl_owner = arg->new;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&ctx->flc_lock);
> + percpu_up_read_preempt_enable(&file_rwsem);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * posix_change_lock_owners - change lock owners from old files_struct to new
> + * @files: new files struct to own locks
> + * @old: old files struct that previously held locks
> + *
> + * On execve, a process may end up with a new files_struct. In that case, we
> + * must change all of the locks that were owned by the previous files_struct
> + * to the new one.
> + */
> +void posix_change_lock_owners(struct files_struct *new,
> + struct files_struct *old)
> +{
> + struct posix_change_lock_owners_arg arg = { .old = old,
> + .new = new };
> +
> + iterate_fd(new, 0, posix_change_lock_owners_cb, &arg);
> +}
> +
> static int posix_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request,
> struct file_lock *conflock)
> {
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 79c413985305..65fa99707bf9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1098,6 +1098,8 @@ extern int lease_modify(struct file_lock *, int, struct list_head *);
> struct files_struct;
> extern void show_fd_locks(struct seq_file *f,
> struct file *filp, struct files_struct *files);
> +extern void posix_change_lock_owners(struct files_struct *new,
> + struct files_struct *old);
> #else /* !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING */
> static inline int fcntl_getlk(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> struct flock __user *user)
> @@ -1232,6 +1234,12 @@ static inline int lease_modify(struct file_lock *fl, int arg,
> struct files_struct;
> static inline void show_fd_locks(struct seq_file *f,
> struct file *filp, struct files_struct *files) {}
> +
> +static inline void posix_change_lock_owners(struct files_struct *new,
> + struct files_struct *old)
> +{
> +}
> +
> #endif /* !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING */
>
> static inline struct inode *file_inode(const struct file *f)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-22 5:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-17 14:25 [PATCH] locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced Jeff Layton
2018-03-17 15:05 ` Al Viro
2018-03-17 15:43 ` Jeff Layton
2018-03-17 15:52 ` Al Viro
2018-03-17 19:28 ` Jeff Layton
2018-03-17 16:58 ` [PATCH v2] " Jeff Layton
2018-03-22 5:19 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2018-03-22 5:36 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-03-22 10:57 ` Jeff Layton
2018-04-02 12:56 ` Jeff Layton
2018-04-03 17:22 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-03-22 11:14 ` Al Viro
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=87bmfgvg8w.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=kstewart@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pombredanne@nexb.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).