linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.0 100/105] Btrfs: send, dont leave without decrementing clone roots send

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: <20150619203601.189167238@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 19 Jun 2015 13:36:30 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.0 100/105] Btrfs: send, dont leave without decrementing clone roots send_progress

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

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

From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>

commit 2f1f465ae6da244099af55c066e5355abd8ff620 upstream.

If the clone root was not readonly or the dead flag was set on it, we were
leaving without decrementing the root's send_progress counter (and before
we just incremented it). If a concurrent snapshot deletion was in progress
and ended up being aborted, it would be impossible to later attempt to
delete again the snapshot, since the root's send_in_progress counter could
never go back to 0.

We were also setting clone_sources_to_rollback to i + 1 too early - if we
bailed out because the clone root we got is not readonly or flagged as dead
we ended up later derreferencing a null pointer because we didn't assign
the clone root to sctx->clone_roots[i].root:

		for (i = 0; sctx && i < clone_sources_to_rollback; i++)
			btrfs_root_dec_send_in_progress(
					sctx->clone_roots[i].root);

So just don't increment the send_in_progress counter if the root is readonly
or flagged as dead.

Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/btrfs/send.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@ -5852,9 +5852,7 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct file *mnt_f
 				ret = PTR_ERR(clone_root);
 				goto out;
 			}
-			clone_sources_to_rollback = i + 1;
 			spin_lock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
-			clone_root->send_in_progress++;
 			if (!btrfs_root_readonly(clone_root) ||
 			    btrfs_root_dead(clone_root)) {
 				spin_unlock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
@@ -5862,10 +5860,12 @@ long btrfs_ioctl_send(struct file *mnt_f
 				ret = -EPERM;
 				goto out;
 			}
+			clone_root->send_in_progress++;
 			spin_unlock(&clone_root->root_item_lock);
 			srcu_read_unlock(&fs_info->subvol_srcu, index);
 
 			sctx->clone_roots[i].root = clone_root;
+			clone_sources_to_rollback = i + 1;
 		}
 		vfree(clone_sources_tmp);
 		clone_sources_tmp = NULL;


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/