Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:29:08 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@...il.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] locks: prevent side-effects of
 locks_release_private before file_lock is initialized

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:39:55PM -0400, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:01 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> > But clearest might be to separate allocation and initialization and
> > delay the latter till we know we're going to need it?
> 
> I started playing with this second idea of yours... Unfortunately
> having fl_lmops unset before it's fully initialized doesn't really
> work because its methods are needed by vfs_setlease()... also, that
> would change the API for other users of that function...
> 
> But I thought of a way of setting a flag to mark the struct as
> uninitialized and then have vfs_setlease() clear that flag once it
> decides to use that struct. If it doesn't and changes the flp pointer
> to the one that was in use before, then it doesn't clear that flag
> which means the locks_free_lock() function will not do any calls into
> fl_lmops which might have side effects on the process...
> 
> Here's the patch:
> 
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 17fd887..8da1217 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1129,6 +1129,7 @@ static inline int file_check_writeable(struct file *filp)
>  #define FL_SLEEP       128     /* A blocking lock */
>  #define FL_DOWNGRADE_PENDING   256 /* Lease is being downgraded */
>  #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING      512 /* Lease is being broken */
> +#define FL_LEASE_UNINITIALIZED 1024 /* Lease was not fully initialized yet */
> 
>  /*
>   * Special return value from posix_lock_file() and vfs_lock_file() for
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 814c51d..a995cc9 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -195,6 +195,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(locks_alloc_lock);
> 
>  void locks_release_private(struct file_lock *fl)
>  {
> +       if (fl->fl_flags & FL_LEASE_UNINITIALIZED)
> +               return;

I don't know, it bugs me a little to muck up common lock code with
an odd exception for the lease code.

Let's just go with your first patch and free the thing by hand (but add
a comment explaining why).

Then come back and figure out how to make the interface clearer once
we've got the bug fixed.

>         if (fl->fl_ops) {
>                 if (fl->fl_ops->fl_release_private)
>                         fl->fl_ops->fl_release_private(fl);
> @@ -454,7 +456,7 @@ static int lease_init(struct file *filp, int type,
> struct file_lock *fl)
>         fl->fl_pid = current->tgid;
> 
>         fl->fl_file = filp;
> -       fl->fl_flags = FL_LEASE;
> +       fl->fl_flags = FL_LEASE | FL_LEASE_UNINITIALIZED;
>         fl->fl_start = 0;
>         fl->fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
>         fl->fl_ops = NULL;
> @@ -1406,6 +1408,7 @@ int generic_add_lease(struct file *filp, long
> arg, struct file_lock **flp)
>         if (!leases_enable)
>                 goto out;
> 
> +       lease->fl_flags &= ~FL_LEASE_UNINITIALIZED;
>         locks_insert_lock(before, lease);
>         return 0;
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, at this point I have more questions than answers...
> * Is this a good idea?
> * Is it good to store this as an extra flag? Or would it be
> preferrable to add an extra boolean field to the file_lock struct
> instead?
> * Is FL_LEASE_UNINITIALIZED a good name for this flag?
> * Should this flag be set only in lease_init()? Or also functions such
> as flock_make_lock()? Potentially everything that is freed with
> locks_free_lock() might need it...
> * Should the flag be cleared in generic_add_lease() only? Or should
> __vfs_setlease() compare the original value of the lease pointer with
> the one returned by generic_setlease() (or filp->f_op->setlease() if
> it's set) and then clear the flag itself?
> 
> Also, looking at lease_alloc(), I noticed that it calls
> locks_free_lock() if lease_init() fails, but lease_init() can only
> fail right at the beginning if assign_type() fails, but at that point
> can it be guaranteed that fl_lmops (and fl_ops for that matter) are
> properly populated or are at least NULL? Maybe locks_alloc_lock()
> should initialize the file_lock struct with a flag indicating that
> it's not fully initialized at that point yet...

locks_alloc_lock() uses kmem_cache_zalloc(), so this is ok--the memory
is zeroed.

> Another thing I noticed (after Bruce pointed me to that code) is that
> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:nfs4_setlease() seems to suffer from the leak bug
> that was fixed by the commits which introduced this issue, it's not
> checking whether vfs_setlease() is returning a different file_lock
> struct than the one it allocated and in that case it's not freeing the
> one it passed.

The v4 code shouldn't ever hit the case where two leases are "merged",
but that should be made more obvious.

--b.

> But I'd say it's probably best to figure out a fix for
> that one only after this one is fixed to avoid introducing the
> regression there as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Filipe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists