linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/4] locks: don't allocate a lock context for an F

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat,  7 Mar 2015 11:09:56 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>
To:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	bfields@...ldses.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] locks: don't allocate a lock context for an F_UNLCK request

In the event that we get an F_UNLCK request on an inode that has no lock
context, there is no reason to allocate one. Change
locks_get_lock_context to take a "type" pointer and avoid allocating a
new context if it's F_UNLCK.

Then, fix the callers to return appropriately if that function returns
NULL.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>
---
 fs/locks.c | 21 ++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 0915a3ead897..7be49ad1c902 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -203,11 +203,11 @@ static struct kmem_cache *flctx_cache __read_mostly;
 static struct kmem_cache *filelock_cache __read_mostly;
 
 static struct file_lock_context *
-locks_get_lock_context(struct inode *inode)
+locks_get_lock_context(struct inode *inode, int type)
 {
 	struct file_lock_context *new;
 
-	if (likely(inode->i_flctx))
+	if (likely(inode->i_flctx) || type == F_UNLCK)
 		goto out;
 
 	new = kmem_cache_alloc(flctx_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -877,9 +877,12 @@ static int flock_lock_file(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *request)
 	bool found = false;
 	LIST_HEAD(dispose);
 
-	ctx = locks_get_lock_context(inode);
-	if (!ctx)
-		return -ENOMEM;
+	ctx = locks_get_lock_context(inode, request->fl_type);
+	if (!ctx) {
+		if (request->fl_type != F_UNLCK)
+			return -ENOMEM;
+		return (request->fl_flags & FL_EXISTS) ? -ENOENT : 0;
+	}
 
 	if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS) && (request->fl_type != F_UNLCK)) {
 		new_fl = locks_alloc_lock();
@@ -945,9 +948,9 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
 	bool added = false;
 	LIST_HEAD(dispose);
 
-	ctx = locks_get_lock_context(inode);
+	ctx = locks_get_lock_context(inode, request->fl_type);
 	if (!ctx)
-		return -ENOMEM;
+		return (request->fl_type == F_UNLCK) ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
 
 	/*
 	 * We may need two file_lock structures for this operation,
@@ -1610,9 +1613,9 @@ generic_add_lease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **flp, void **pr
 	lease = *flp;
 	trace_generic_add_lease(inode, lease);
 
-	ctx = locks_get_lock_context(inode);
+	ctx = locks_get_lock_context(inode, arg);
 	if (!ctx)
-		return -ENOMEM;
+		return (arg == F_UNLCK) ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
 
 	/*
 	 * In the delegation case we need mutual exclusion with
-- 
2.1.0

--
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/