linux-kernel - [PATCH 035/241] NFSv4.1: We must release the sequence id when we fail to get a session slot

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]

Message-Id: <1355407206-17100-36-git-send-email-herton.krzesinski@canonical.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:56:40 -0200
From:	Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 035/241] NFSv4.1: We must release the sequence id when we fail to get a session slot

3.5.7.2 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>

commit 2240a9e2d013d8269ea425b73e1d7a54c7bc141f upstream.

If we do not release the sequence id in cases where we fail to get a
session slot, then we can deadlock if we hit a recovery scenario.

Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
[ herton: unfuzz patch ]
Signed-off-by: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski <herton.krzesinski@...onical.com>
---
 fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c |   36 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index aa321ac..e690a13 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -1496,9 +1496,11 @@ static void nfs4_open_prepare(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
 	data->timestamp = jiffies;
 	if (nfs4_setup_sequence(data->o_arg.server,
 				&data->o_arg.seq_args,
-				&data->o_res.seq_res, task))
-		return;
-	rpc_call_start(task);
+				&data->o_res.seq_res,
+				task) != 0)
+		nfs_release_seqid(data->o_arg.seqid);
+	else
+		rpc_call_start(task);
 	return;
 unlock_no_action:
 	rcu_read_unlock();
@@ -2138,9 +2140,10 @@ static void nfs4_close_prepare(struct rpc_task *task, void *data)
 	if (nfs4_setup_sequence(NFS_SERVER(calldata->inode),
 				&calldata->arg.seq_args,
 				&calldata->res.seq_res,
-				task))
-		goto out;
-	rpc_call_start(task);
+				task) != 0)
+		nfs_release_seqid(calldata->arg.seqid);
+	else
+		rpc_call_start(task);
 out:
 	dprintk("%s: done!\n", __func__);
 }
@@ -4355,9 +4358,11 @@ static void nfs4_locku_prepare(struct rpc_task *task, void *data)
 	calldata->timestamp = jiffies;
 	if (nfs4_setup_sequence(calldata->server,
 				&calldata->arg.seq_args,
-				&calldata->res.seq_res, task))
-		return;
-	rpc_call_start(task);
+				&calldata->res.seq_res,
+				task) != 0)
+		nfs_release_seqid(calldata->arg.seqid);
+	else
+		rpc_call_start(task);
 }
 
 static const struct rpc_call_ops nfs4_locku_ops = {
@@ -4502,7 +4507,7 @@ static void nfs4_lock_prepare(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
 	/* Do we need to do an open_to_lock_owner? */
 	if (!(data->arg.lock_seqid->sequence->flags & NFS_SEQID_CONFIRMED)) {
 		if (nfs_wait_on_sequence(data->arg.open_seqid, task) != 0)
-			return;
+			goto out_release_lock_seqid;
 		data->arg.open_stateid = &state->stateid;
 		data->arg.new_lock_owner = 1;
 		data->res.open_seqid = data->arg.open_seqid;
@@ -4511,10 +4516,15 @@ static void nfs4_lock_prepare(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
 	data->timestamp = jiffies;
 	if (nfs4_setup_sequence(data->server,
 				&data->arg.seq_args,
-				&data->res.seq_res, task))
+				&data->res.seq_res,
+				task) == 0) {
+		rpc_call_start(task);
 		return;
-	rpc_call_start(task);
-	dprintk("%s: done!, ret = %d\n", __func__, data->rpc_status);
+	}
+	nfs_release_seqid(data->arg.open_seqid);
+out_release_lock_seqid:
+	nfs_release_seqid(data->arg.lock_seqid);
+	dprintk("%s: done!, ret = %d\n", __func__, task->tk_status);
 }
 
 static void nfs4_recover_lock_prepare(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
-- 
1.7.9.5

--
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/