| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190802081335.GJ26174@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 10:13:35 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@...hat.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
idryomov@...hat.com, jlayton@...hat.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] ceph: hold i_ceph_lock when removing caps for
freeing inode
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 09:46:35AM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On 5/29/19 9:14 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > [This is an automated email]
> >
> > This commit has been processed because it contains a -stable tag.
> > The stable tag indicates that it's relevant for the following trees: all
> >
> > The bot has tested the following trees: v5.1.4, v5.0.18, v4.19.45, v4.14.121, v4.9.178, v4.4.180, v3.18.140.
> >
> > v5.1.4: Build OK!
> > v5.0.18: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> > e3ec8d6898f71 ("ceph: send cap releases more aggressively")
> >
> > v4.19.45: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> > e3ec8d6898f71 ("ceph: send cap releases more aggressively")
> >
> > v4.14.121: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> > a1c6b8358171c ("ceph: define argument structure for handle_cap_grant")
> > a57d9064e4ee4 ("ceph: flush pending works before shutdown super")
> > e3ec8d6898f71 ("ceph: send cap releases more aggressively")
> >
> > v4.9.178: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> > a1c6b8358171c ("ceph: define argument structure for handle_cap_grant")
> > a57d9064e4ee4 ("ceph: flush pending works before shutdown super")
> > e3ec8d6898f71 ("ceph: send cap releases more aggressively")
> >
> > v4.4.180: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> > 13d1ad16d05ee ("libceph: move message allocation out of ceph_osdc_alloc_request()")
> > 34b759b4a22b0 ("ceph: kill ceph_empty_snapc")
> > 3f1af42ad0fad ("libceph: enable large, variable-sized OSD requests")
> > 5be0389dac662 ("ceph: re-send AIO write request when getting -EOLDSNAP error")
> > 7627151ea30bc ("libceph: define new ceph_file_layout structure")
> > 779fe0fb8e188 ("ceph: rados pool namespace support")
> > 922dab6134178 ("libceph, rbd: ceph_osd_linger_request, watch/notify v2")
> > a1c6b8358171c ("ceph: define argument structure for handle_cap_grant")
> > ae458f5a171ba ("libceph: make r_request msg_size calculation clearer")
> > c41d13a31fefe ("rbd: use header_oid instead of header_name")
> > c8fe9b17d055f ("ceph: Asynchronous IO support")
> > d30291b985d18 ("libceph: variable-sized ceph_object_id")
> > e3ec8d6898f71 ("ceph: send cap releases more aggressively")
> >
> > v3.18.140: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
> > 10183a69551f7 ("ceph: check OSD caps before read/write")
> > 28127bdd2f843 ("ceph: convert inline data to normal data before data write")
> > 31c542a199d79 ("ceph: add inline data to pagecache")
> > 5be0389dac662 ("ceph: re-send AIO write request when getting -EOLDSNAP error")
> > 70db4f3629b34 ("ceph: introduce a new inode flag indicating if cached dentries are ordered")
> > 745a8e3bccbc6 ("ceph: don't pre-allocate space for cap release messages")
> > 7627151ea30bc ("libceph: define new ceph_file_layout structure")
> > 779fe0fb8e188 ("ceph: rados pool namespace support")
> > 83701246aee8f ("ceph: sync read inline data")
> > a1c6b8358171c ("ceph: define argument structure for handle_cap_grant")
> > affbc19a68f99 ("ceph: make sure syncfs flushes all cap snaps")
> > c8fe9b17d055f ("ceph: Asynchronous IO support")
> > d30291b985d18 ("libceph: variable-sized ceph_object_id")
> > d3383a8e37f80 ("ceph: avoid block operation when !TASK_RUNNING (ceph_mdsc_sync)")
> > e3ec8d6898f71 ("ceph: send cap releases more aggressively")
> > e96a650a8174e ("ceph, rbd: delete unnecessary checks before two function calls")
> >
> >
> > How should we proceed with this patch?
> >
>
> please use following patch for old kernels
>
> Regards
> Yan, Zheng
>
> ---
> From 55937416f12e096621b06ada7554cacb89d06e97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@...hat.com>
> Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:01:37 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] ceph: hold i_ceph_lock when removing caps for freeing inode
>
> ceph_d_revalidate(, LOOKUP_RCU) may call __ceph_caps_issued_mask()
> on a freeing inode.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> ---
> fs/ceph/caps.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ceph/caps.c b/fs/ceph/caps.c
> index ff5d32cf9578..0fb4e919cdce 100644
> --- a/fs/ceph/caps.c
> +++ b/fs/ceph/caps.c
> @@ -1119,20 +1119,23 @@ static int send_cap_msg(struct cap_msg_args *arg)
> }
>
> /*
> - * Queue cap releases when an inode is dropped from our cache. Since
> - * inode is about to be destroyed, there is no need for i_ceph_lock.
> + * Queue cap releases when an inode is dropped from our cache.
> */
> void ceph_queue_caps_release(struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct ceph_inode_info *ci = ceph_inode(inode);
> struct rb_node *p;
>
> + /* lock i_ceph_lock, because ceph_d_revalidate(..., LOOKUP_RCU)
> + * may call __ceph_caps_issued_mask() on a freeing inode. */
> + spin_lock(&ci->i_ceph_lock);
> p = rb_first(&ci->i_caps);
> while (p) {
> struct ceph_cap *cap = rb_entry(p, struct ceph_cap, ci_node);
> p = rb_next(p);
> __ceph_remove_cap(cap, true);
> }
> + spin_unlock(&ci->i_ceph_lock);
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.17.2
Thanks for the backport, now queued up.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists