linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: unify locking semantics for fs freeze / thaw

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: <20230525121730.mqmdm7zp2rvnqjvi@quack3>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2023 14:17:30 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org, sandeen@...deen.net,
        song@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, jikos@...nel.org,
        bvanassche@....org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, p.raghav@...sung.com, da.gomez@...sung.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...force.de,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] fs: unify locking semantics for fs freeze / thaw

On Sun 07-05-23 18:17:12, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> Right now freeze_super()  and thaw_super() are called with
> different locking contexts. To expand on this is messy, so
> just unify the requirement to require grabbing an active
> reference and keep the superblock locked.
> 
> Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>

Finally got around to looking at this. Sorry for the delay. In principle I
like the direction but see below:

> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> index 61c5f9d26018..e31d6791d3e3 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> @@ -2166,7 +2166,10 @@ int f2fs_resize_fs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, __u64 block_count)
>  	if (err)
>  		return err;
>  
> +	if (!get_active_super(sbi->sb->s_bdev))
> +		return -ENOTTY;

Calling get_active_super() like this is just sick. You rather want to
provide a helper for grabbing another active sb reference and locking the
sb when you already have sb reference. Because that is what is needed in
the vast majority of the places. Something like

void grab_active_super(struct super_block *sb)
{
	down_write(sb->s_umount);
	atomic_inc(&s->s_active);
}

> @@ -851,13 +849,13 @@ struct super_block *get_active_super(struct block_device *bdev)
>  		if (sb->s_bdev == bdev) {
>  			if (!grab_super(sb))
>  				goto restart;
> -			up_write(&sb->s_umount);
>  			return sb;
>  		}
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>  	return NULL;
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_active_super);

And I'd call this grab_bdev_super() and no need to export it when you have
grab_active_super().

> @@ -1636,10 +1634,13 @@ static void sb_freeze_unlock(struct super_block *sb, int level)
>  }
>  
>  /**
> - * freeze_super - lock the filesystem and force it into a consistent state
> + * freeze_super - force a filesystem backed by a block device into a consistent state
>   * @sb: the super to lock
>   *
> - * Syncs the super to make sure the filesystem is consistent and calls the fs's
> + * Used by filesystems and the kernel to freeze a fileystem backed by a block
> + * device into a consistent state. Callers must use get_active_super(bdev) to
> + * lock the @sb and when done must unlock it with deactivate_locked_super().
> + * Syncs the filesystem backed by the @sb and calls the filesystem's optional
>   * freeze_fs.  Subsequent calls to this without first thawing the fs will return
>   * -EBUSY.
>   *
> @@ -1672,22 +1673,15 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	atomic_inc(&sb->s_active);
> -	down_write(&sb->s_umount);
> -	if (sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_UNFROZEN) {
> -		deactivate_locked_super(sb);

At least add a warning for s_umount not being held here?

> +	if (sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_UNFROZEN)
>  		return -EBUSY;
> -	}
>  
> -	if (!(sb->s_flags & SB_BORN)) {
> -		up_write(&sb->s_umount);
> +	if (!(sb->s_flags & SB_BORN))
>  		return 0;	/* sic - it's "nothing to do" */
> -	}
>  
>  	if (sb_rdonly(sb)) {
>  		/* Nothing to do really... */
>  		sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
> -		up_write(&sb->s_umount);
>  		return 0;
>  	}

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR