linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] fs/dcache: Avoid the try_lock loops in dentry

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: <20180223054626.GB30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 05:46:27 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] fs/dcache: Avoid the try_lock loops in
 dentry_kill()

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 03:12:14AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

> failed:
> 	spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> 	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> 	spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> 	parent = lock_parent(dentry);

Hmm...  Negative dentry case obviously is trickier - not to mention oopsen,
it might have become positive under us.  Bugger...  OTOH, it's not much
trickier - with negative dentry we can only fail on trying to lock the
parent, in which case we should just check that it's still negative before
killing it off.  If it has gone positive on us, we'll just unlock the
parent and we are back to the normal "positive dentry, only ->d_lock held"
case.  At most one retry there - once it's positive, it stays positive.
So,

static struct dentry *dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry)
        __releases(dentry->d_lock)
{
	struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
	struct dentry *parent = NULL;

	if (inode && unlikely(!spin_trylock(&inode->i_lock)))
		goto no_locks;

	if (!IS_ROOT(dentry)) {
		parent = dentry->d_parent;
		if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock))) {
			if (inode) {
				spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
				goto no_locks;
			}
			goto need_parent;
		}
	}
kill_it:
	__dentry_kill(dentry);
	return parent;

no_locks:	/* positive, only ->d_lock held */
	spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
	spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
need_parent:
	parent = lock_parent(dentry);
	if (unlikely(dentry->d_lockref.count != 1 || retain_dentry(dentry))) {
		/* we are keeping it, after all */
		if (inode)
			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
		spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
		if (parent)
			spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
		return NULL;
	}
	/* it should die */
	if (inode)	/* was positive, ->d_inode unchanged, locks held */
		goto kill_it;
	inode = dentry->d_inode;	// READ_ONCE?
	if (!inode)	/* still negative, locks held */
		goto kill_it;
	/* negative became positive; it can't become negative again */
	if (parent)
		spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
	goto no_locks;	/* once */
}