[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1507372617.26934.0.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2017 06:36:57 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@....com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bfields@...ldses.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/afs/flock and fs/locks: Fix possible sleep-in-atomic
bugs in posix_lock_file
On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 17:55 +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> The kernel may sleep under a spinlock, and the function call paths are:
> afs_do_unlk (acquire the spinlock)
> posix_lock_file
> posix_lock_inode (fs/locks.c)
> locks_get_lock_context
> kmem_cache_alloc(GFP_KERNEL) --> may sleep
>
> afs_do_setlk (acquire the spinlock)
> posix_lock_file
> posix_lock_inode (fs/locks.c)
> locks_get_lock_context
> kmem_cache_alloc(GFP_KERNEL) --> may sleep
>
> To fix them, GFP_KERNEL is replaced with GFP_ATOMIC.
> These bugs are found by my static analysis tool and my code review.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@....com>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 1bd71c4..975cc62 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ struct file_lock_list_struct {
> if (likely(ctx) || type == F_UNLCK)
> goto out;
>
> - ctx = kmem_cache_alloc(flctx_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
> + ctx = kmem_cache_alloc(flctx_cache, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!ctx)
> goto out;
>
NAK
This needs to be fixed in the AFS code. It should not be calling these
functions with a spinlock held.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists