linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] cifsd: add file operations

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: <YFhiySJYbWW8bq6C@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:26:33 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-cifsd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, smfrench@...il.com,
        senozhatsky@...omium.org, hyc.lee@...il.com, hch@....de,
        hch@...radead.org, ronniesahlberg@...il.com,
        aurelien.aptel@...il.com, aaptel@...e.com, sandeen@...deen.net,
        dan.carpenter@...cle.com, colin.king@...onical.com,
        rdunlap@...radead.org,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] cifsd: add file operations

On (21/03/22 07:02), Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 02:13:42PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > +static struct ksmbd_file *__ksmbd_lookup_fd(struct ksmbd_file_table *ft,
> > +					    unsigned int id)
> > +{
> > +	bool unclaimed = true;
> > +	struct ksmbd_file *fp;
> > +
> > +	read_lock(&ft->lock);
> > +	fp = idr_find(ft->idr, id);
> > +	if (fp)
> > +		fp = ksmbd_fp_get(fp);
> > +
> > +	if (fp && fp->f_ci) {
> > +		read_lock(&fp->f_ci->m_lock);
> > +		unclaimed = list_empty(&fp->node);
> > +		read_unlock(&fp->f_ci->m_lock);
> > +	}
> > +	read_unlock(&ft->lock);
> > +
> > +	if (fp && unclaimed) {
> > +		atomic_dec(&fp->refcount);
> > +		return NULL;
> > +	}
>
> Can that atomic_dec() end up dropping the last remaining reference?

Yes, I think it should increment refcount only for "claimed" fp.