Message-ID: <20121101161038.GK2616@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:10:38 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc:	eparis@...isplace.org, hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp,
	sgruszka@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Pankaj Kumar <jangra.pankaj9@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: notify: Fix race condition between umount and
 inotify_rm_watch

On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 12:51:36AM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> When a user is monitoring an FS_UMOUNT watch using the inotify framework,
> there can be a potential race condition between the umount path &
> inotify_rm_watch. This scenario can be like-
> =================================================================
> user does the following calls-
> fd = inotify_init();
> inotify_add_watch(path, IN_UNMOUNT); /* added a watch to path*/
> read(fd); /* wait for the event */
> inotify_rm_watch(); /* as soon as event came, remove the
> watch tag from the selected path */
> 
> Now as we trigger the umount command on the above mentioned path,
> it will trigger a fsnotification for all the waiting inotify watches,
> and then userspace will find that event came, it does the required
> action and remove the watch.
> Now while watch is being removed, there is possibility that umount
> process is still under execution & in not complete and on the other
> path inotify_rm_watch() will call an iput() on the watched inode,
> then there can be a race whether the inode's superblock is valid
> at that moment or its gone.
> So some time we end up in this race very badly and we try to access
> the super_block which now not in a valid memory and kernel dies. Trace
> is like shown below
> 
>   138.892000] [<c02f1050>] (do_raw_spin_trylock+0x0/0x54) from
>   [<c043e590>] (__raw_spin_lock+0x34/0x90)
>   [  138.900000] [<c043e55c>] (__raw_spin_lock+0x0/0x90) from
>   [<c043e604>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x18/0x1c)
>   [  138.908000]  r5:000000bc r4:e3db94f0
>   [  138.912000] [<c043e5ec>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x0/0x1c) from
>   [<c01e3c94>] (fat_detach+0x3c/0x80)
>   [  138.920000] [<c01e3c58>] (fat_detach+0x0/0x80) from [<c01e3d40>]
>   (fat_evict_inode+0x68/0x6c)
>   [  138.932000]  r5:c0459cc0 r4:e3db94f0
>   [  138.932000] [<c01e3cd8>] (fat_evict_inode+0x0/0x6c) from
>   [<c0154f00>] (evict+0x94/0x154)
>   [  138.940000]  r4:e3db94f0 r3:c01e3cd8
>   [  138.944000] [<c0154e6c>] (evict+0x0/0x154) from [<c0155184>]
>   (iput+0x17c/0x18c)
>   [  138.952000]  r5:e3db9504 r4:e3db94f0
>   [  138.956000] [<c0155008>] (iput+0x0/0x18c) from [<c0173ae4>]
>   (fsnotify_destroy_mark+0x15c/0x19c)
>   [  138.964000]  r6:e3db94f0 r5:e3017540 r4:e41882a0 r3:271aed08
>   [  138.972000] [<c0173988>] (fsnotify_destroy_mark+0x0/0x19c) from
>   [<c0175890>] (sys_inotify_rm_watch+0x88/0xc0)
>   [  138.980000]  r8:c004aba8 r7:e3017540 r6:e41882a0 r5:00000000
>   r4:e3017300
>   [  138.988000] r3:00000000
>   [  138.988000] [<c0175808>] (sys_inotify_rm_watch+0x0/0xc0) from
>   [<c004a920>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x30
> 
> So we can see inside the fat_detach function we are accessing illegal
> inode->i_sb->s_fs_info and we end up in above crash.
> ====================================================================
> To solve this race, we must have some sort of serialized access to
> superblock structure in umount path and fsnotification path. Now since
> the umount path takes an exclusive lock on s_umount of superblock.
> So if umount is in progress, this lock will not be free.
> 
> Hence we may try to take a shared access to super block's s_umount lock
> inside the inotify_rm_watch() & if lock is free, means no one is doing
> write operation on this superblock. So we can then just go ahead and
> then before calling iput on the concerned inode, first we should check
> whether this inode's superblock is still valid( e.g s_count is >= 1) or not.
> So based on this condition we can choose our action and prevent the race.

NAK.  The bug is real, but proposed fix is broken.  AFAICS, your variant
is going to deadlock if watch removal request comes in the middle of umount,
when ->s_umount has already been taken.

Moreover, ->s_count doesn't do what you seem to think it does.  If you ever
see a superblock with ->s_count being 0, you've already lost.  It might've
been dereferencing already kfree()'d memory, for all you know.
--
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