linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.15 054/913] cifs: we do not need a spinlock around the tree access during umount

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]

Date:   Tue,  5 Apr 2022 09:18:36 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@...hat.com>,
        Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5.15 054/913] cifs: we do not need a spinlock around the tree access during umount

From: Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@...hat.com>

commit 9a14b65d590105d393b63f5320e1594edda7c672 upstream.

Remove the spinlock around the tree traversal as we are calling possibly
sleeping functions.
We do not need a spinlock here as there will be no modifications to this
tree at this point.

This prevents warnings like this to occur in dmesg:
[  653.774996] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/loc\
king/mutex.c:280
[  653.775088] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1827, nam\
e: umount
[  653.775152] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
[  653.775191] CPU: 0 PID: 1827 Comm: umount Tainted: G        W  OE     5.17.0\
-rc7-00006-g4eb628dd74df #135
[  653.775195] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.14.0-\
1.fc33 04/01/2014
[  653.775197] Call Trace:
[  653.775199]  <TASK>
[  653.775202]  dump_stack_lvl+0x34/0x44
[  653.775209]  __might_resched.cold+0x13f/0x172
[  653.775213]  mutex_lock+0x75/0xf0
[  653.775217]  ? __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x10/0x10
[  653.775220]  ? _raw_write_lock_irq+0xd0/0xd0
[  653.775224]  ? dput+0x6b/0x360
[  653.775228]  cifs_kill_sb+0xff/0x1d0 [cifs]
[  653.775285]  deactivate_locked_super+0x85/0x130
[  653.775289]  cleanup_mnt+0x32c/0x4d0
[  653.775292]  ? path_umount+0x228/0x380
[  653.775296]  task_work_run+0xd8/0x180
[  653.775301]  exit_to_user_mode_loop+0x152/0x160
[  653.775306]  exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x89/0xd0
[  653.775315]  syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x12/0x30
[  653.775322]  do_syscall_64+0x48/0x90
[  653.775326]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae

Fixes: 187af6e98b44e5d8f25e1d41a92db138eb54416f ("cifs: fix handlecache and multiuser")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 fs/cifs/cifsfs.c |    2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
@@ -266,7 +266,6 @@ static void cifs_kill_sb(struct super_bl
 		dput(cifs_sb->root);
 		cifs_sb->root = NULL;
 	}
-	spin_lock(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree_lock);
 	node = rb_first(root);
 	while (node != NULL) {
 		tlink = rb_entry(node, struct tcon_link, tl_rbnode);
@@ -280,7 +279,6 @@ static void cifs_kill_sb(struct super_bl
 		mutex_unlock(&cfid->fid_mutex);
 		node = rb_next(node);
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&cifs_sb->tlink_tree_lock);
 
 	kill_anon_super(sb);
 	cifs_umount(cifs_sb);