linux-kernel - Re: NFS/lazy-umount/path-lookup-related panics at shutdown (at kill of processes on lazy-umounted filesystems) with 3.9.2 and 3.9.5

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:27:01 +0100
From:	Nix <nix@...eri.org.uk>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NFS list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: NFS/lazy-umount/path-lookup-related panics at shutdown (at kill of processes on lazy-umounted filesystems) with 3.9.2 and 3.9.5

On 12 Jun 2013, Al Viro outgrape:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 01:08:26PM +0100, Nix wrote:
>
>> At this point, we have a sibcall to call_connect() I think. The RPC task
>> of discourse happens to be local, and as the relevant comment says
>> 
>> 		 * We want the AF_LOCAL connect to be resolved in the
>> 		 * filesystem namespace of the process making the rpc
>> 		 * call.  Thus we connect synchronously.
>> 
>> Probably this should be doing this only if said namespace isn't
>> disconnected and going away...
>
> Namespace, shnamespace...  In this case the namespace is alive and well,
> it's just that the process is getting killed and it's already past the
> point where it has discarded all references to root/cwd.

Yeah.

>> > Why is it done in essentially random process context, anyway?  There's such thing
>> > as chroot, after all, which would screw that sucker as hard as NULL ->fs, but in
>> > a less visible way...
>> 
>> I don't think it is a random process context. It's all intentionally
>> done in the context of the process which is the last to close that
>> filesystem, as part of the process of tearing it down -- but it looks
>> like the NFS svcrpc connection code isn't expecting to be called in that
>> situation.
>
> _What_?  Suppose we have something mounted on /jail/net/foo/bar; will the
> effect of process chrooted into /jail doing umount /net/foo/bar be different
> from that of process outside of the jail doing umount /jail/net/foo/bar?

Correction: that comment suggests that it was intentionally done. I
didn't write the comment and I make no judgement on whether it makes
sense or not (it looks like it would *normally* make sense, but I guess
nobody thought of the case of a connection being done as part of
disconnection after the cwd is gone).

I'm just the guy getting bitten by the resulting oops :)

-- 
NULL && (void)
--
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/