linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vfs: introduce UMOUNT_WAIT which waits for umount completion

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: <20170915042137.GX5426@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2017 05:21:37 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: introduce UMOUNT_WAIT which waits for umount
 completion

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 08:45:18PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:

> > Which filesystem it is?  With root I would've expected remount ro done
> > by sys_umount(); with anything else...  How has it managed to avoid
> > -EBUSY?  If it was umount -l (IOW, MNT_DETACH), I can see that happening,
> > but...  How would flushing prevent the scenario when the same opened
> > file had remained open until after the umount(2) return?
> 
> It's ext4, and we use umount(0) and retry it several times if -EBUSY happens.

????

umount(0) will result in EFAULT; what are you talking about?

> But, I don't see -EBUSY error in the log.

Sorry, I'd been unclear - where is it mounted?  Is that the root filesystem?

> > In other words, where has that fput() come from and how had it managed
> > to get past the umount(2)?
> 
> Huge number of fput() were called by system drivers when init kills all the
> processes before umount(2). So, most of fput() were added in delayed_fput_list.

Umm...  What do you mean by system drivers?  If it was held by userland processes,
then we are back to the same question - why has task_work_add() failed in fput()?
If it had been kernel threads, which files had they been holding open?

> Then, it seems there is a race between delayed_fput() and umount(). Anyway,
> even after umount returns zero, it seems ext4's superblock is still alive
> and waiting for delayed_fput() which will finally call put_super.

That might be more than one mount of the same fs (in different namespaces, for
example) with umount taking out one of those, with the other having been
hit with umount -l before that, with some opened files being the only thing
that used to keep it alive.

I'd like to see /proc/1/mountinfo and fuser output, TBH...  I'm not familiar enough
with Android userland setup, so my apologies for dumb questions ;-/