linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/10] VFS: support concurrent renames.

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:   Sat, 27 Aug 2022 05:12:45 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Daire Byrne <daire@...g.com>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] VFS: support concurrent renames.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:10:43PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> Allow object can now be renamed from or to a directory in which a create
> or unlink is concurrently happening.
> 
> Two or more renames with the one directory can also be concurrent.
> s_vfs_rename_mutex still serialises lookups for cross-directory renames,
> but the renames themselves can proceed concurrently.

Wha...?  <checks>
Not true, fortunately - you *do* hold ->s_vfs_rename_mutex over the
rename itself.  If not for that, it would be utterly broken.
And I don't care for NFS server rejecting that - we are *NOT* taking
loop prevention logics into every filesystem.  It's highly non-local
and trying to handle it with your per-dentry flags is going to be
painful as hell, if at all possible.

> +	if (d1 < d2) {
> +		ok1 = d_lock_update_nested(d1, p1, last1, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> +		ok2 = d_lock_update_nested(d2, p2, last2, I_MUTEX_PARENT2);
> +	} else {
> +		ok2 = d_lock_update_nested(d2, p2, last2, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> +		ok1 = d_lock_update_nested(d1, p1, last1, I_MUTEX_PARENT2);
> +	}

Explain, please.  What's that ordering about?