linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	"<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Mailing List" 
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Files leak from nfsd in 4.7.1-rc1 (and more?)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:10:40 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <A0A3CAA8-969A-4E12-9532-41DE9D257C74@linuxhacker.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1465383501.27742.19.camel@poochiereds.net>


On Jun 8, 2016, at 6:58 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:

> A simple way to confirm that might be to convert all of the read locks
> on the st_rwsem to write locks. That will serialize all of the open
> operations and should prevent that particular race from occurring.
> 
> If that works, we'd probably want to fix it in a less heavy-handed way,
> but I'd have to think about how best to do that.

So I looked at the call sites for nfs4_get_vfs_file(), how about something like this:

after we grab the fp->fi_lock, we can do test_access(open->op_share_access, stp);

If that returns true - just drop the spinlock and return EAGAIN.

The callsite in nfs4_upgrade_open() would handle that by retesting the access map
again and either coming back in or more likely reusing the now updated stateid
(synchronised by the fi_lock again).
We probably need to convert the whole access map testing there to be under
fi_lock.
Something like:
nfs4_upgrade_open(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfs4_file *fp, struct svc_fh *cur_fh, struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp, struct nfsd4_open *open)
{
        __be32 status;
        unsigned char old_deny_bmap = stp->st_deny_bmap;

again:
+        spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
        if (!test_access(open->op_share_access, stp)) {
+		spin_unlock(&fp->fi_lock);
+               status = nfs4_get_vfs_file(rqstp, fp, cur_fh, stp, open);
+		if (status == -EAGAIN)
+			goto again;
+		return status;
+	}

        /* test and set deny mode */
-        spin_lock(&fp->fi_lock);
        status = nfs4_file_check_deny(fp, open->op_share_deny);


The call in nfsd4_process_open2() I think cannot hit this condition, right?
probably can add a WARN_ON there? BUG_ON? more sensible approach?

Alternatively we can probably always call nfs4_get_vfs_file() under this spinlock,
just have it drop that for the open and then reobtain (already done), not as transparent I guess.

Or the fi_lock might be converted to say a mutex, so we can sleep with it held and
then we can hold it across whole invocation of nfs4_get_vfs_file() and access testing and stuff.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-08 16:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-07 15:37 Files leak from nfsd in 4.7.1-rc1 (and more?) Oleg Drokin
2016-06-07 17:10 ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-07 17:30   ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-07 20:04     ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-07 23:39       ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-08  0:03         ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-08  0:46           ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-08  2:22           ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-08  3:55             ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-08 10:58             ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-08 14:44               ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-08 16:10               ` Oleg Drokin [this message]
2016-06-08 17:22                 ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-08 17:37                   ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-09  2:55                   ` [PATCH] nfsd: Always lock state exclusively Oleg Drokin
2016-06-09 10:13                     ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-09 21:01                   ` [PATCH] nfsd: Close a race between access checking/setting in nfs4_get_vfs_file Oleg Drokin
2016-06-10  4:18                     ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-10 10:50                       ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-10 20:55                         ` J . Bruce Fields
2016-06-11 15:41                           ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-12  1:33                             ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-12  2:06                               ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-12  2:50                                 ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-12  3:15                                   ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-12 13:13                                     ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-13  1:26                                     ` [PATCH v2] nfsd: Always lock state exclusively Oleg Drokin
2016-06-14 15:38                                       ` J . Bruce Fields
2016-06-14 15:53                                         ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-14 18:50                                           ` J . Bruce Fields
2016-06-14 22:52                                             ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-14 22:54                                               ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-14 22:57                                                 ` Jeff Layton
2016-06-15  3:28                                                   ` [PATCH 0/3] nfsd state handling fixes Oleg Drokin
2016-06-15  3:28                                                     ` [PATCH 1/3] nfsd: Always lock state exclusively Oleg Drokin
2016-06-15  3:28                                                     ` [PATCH 2/3] nfsd: Extend the mutex holding region around in nfsd4_process_open2() Oleg Drokin
2016-06-15  3:28                                                     ` [PATCH 3/3] nfsd: Make init_open_stateid() a bit more whole Oleg Drokin
2016-06-16  1:54                                                     ` [PATCH 0/3] nfsd state handling fixes Oleg Drokin
2016-06-16  2:07                                                       ` J . Bruce Fields
2016-06-14 15:46                                       ` [PATCH v2] nfsd: Always lock state exclusively J . Bruce Fields
2016-06-14 15:56                                         ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-14 18:46                                           ` J . Bruce Fields
2016-06-15  2:19                                             ` Oleg Drokin
2016-06-15 13:31                                               ` J . Bruce Fields
2016-06-09 12:13               ` Files leak from nfsd in 4.7.1-rc1 (and more?) Andrew W Elble

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=A0A3CAA8-969A-4E12-9532-41DE9D257C74@linuxhacker.ru \
    --to=green@linuxhacker.ru \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).