[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160301234500.894856844@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 23:51:00 +0000
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<stable@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH 3.14 032/130] lock_parent: dont step on stale ->d_parent of all-but-freed one
3.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
commit c2338f2dc7c1e9f6202f370c64ffd7f44f3d4b51 upstream.
Dentry that had been through (or into) __dentry_kill() might be seen
by shrink_dentry_list(); that's normal, it'll be taken off the shrink
list and freed if __dentry_kill() has already finished. The problem
is, its ->d_parent might be pointing to already freed dentry, so
lock_parent() needs to be careful.
We need to check that dentry hasn't already gone into __dentry_kill()
*and* grab rcu_read_lock() before dropping ->d_lock - the latter makes
sure that whatever we see in ->d_parent after dropping ->d_lock it
won't be freed until we drop rcu_read_lock().
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
fs/dcache.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -530,10 +530,12 @@ static inline struct dentry *lock_parent
struct dentry *parent = dentry->d_parent;
if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
return NULL;
+ if (unlikely((int)dentry->d_lockref.count < 0))
+ return NULL;
if (likely(spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)))
return parent;
- spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
rcu_read_lock();
+ spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
again:
parent = ACCESS_ONCE(dentry->d_parent);
spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists