linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: dont take i

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: <996e11bf-5f22-3ab7-2951-92109649195d@themaw.net>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 08:00:39 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        elver@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: dont take i_lock on inode attr read

On 27/7/23 12:30, Imran Khan wrote:
> Hello Ian,
> Sorry for late reply. I was about to reply this week.
>
> On 27/7/2023 10:38 am, Ian Kent wrote:
>> On 20/7/23 10:03, Ian Kent wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2023-07-19 at 12:23 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> [...]
>>> I do see a problem with recent changes.
>>>
>>> I'll send this off to Greg after I've done some testing (primarily just
>>> compile and function).
>>>
>>> Here's a patch which describes what I found.
>>>
>>> Comments are, of course, welcome, ;)
>> Anders I was hoping you would check if/what lockdep trace
>>
>> you get with this patch.
>>
>>
>> Imran, I was hoping you would comment on my change as it
>>
>> relates to the kernfs_iattr_rwsem changes.
>>
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>> kernfs: fix missing kernfs_iattr_rwsem locking
>>>
>>> From: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
>>>
>>> When the kernfs_iattr_rwsem was introduced a case was missed.
>>>
>>> The update of the kernfs directory node child count was also protected
>>> by the kernfs_rwsem and needs to be included in the change so that the
>>> child count (and so the inode n_link attribute) does not change while
>>> holding the rwsem for read.
>>>
> kernfs direcytory node's child count changes in kernfs_(un)link_sibling and
> these are getting invoked while adding (kernfs_add_one),
> removing(__kernfs_remove) or moving (kernfs_rename_ns)a node. Each of these
> operations proceed under kernfs_rwsem and I see each invocation of
> kernfs_link/unlink_sibling during the above mentioned operations is happening
> under kernfs_rwsem.
> So the child count should still be protected by kernfs_rwsem and we should not
> need to acquire kernfs_iattr_rwsem in kernfs_link/unlink_sibling.

Yes, that's exactly what I intended (assuming you mean write lock in 
those cases)

when I did it so now I wonder what I saw that lead to my patch, I'll 
need to look

again ...


>
> Kindly let me know your thoughts. I would still like to see new lockdep traces
> with this change.

Indeed, I hope Anders can find time to get the trace.


Ian

>
> Thanks,
> Imran
>
>>> Fixes: 9caf696142 (kernfs: Introduce separate rwsem to protect inode
>>> attributes)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
>>> Cc: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>
>>> Cc: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@...cle.com>
>>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>>> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>>> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
>>> ---
>>>    fs/kernfs/dir.c |    4 ++++
>>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/kernfs/dir.c b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>>> index 45b6919903e6..6e84bb69602e 100644
>>> --- a/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>>> +++ b/fs/kernfs/dir.c
>>> @@ -383,9 +383,11 @@ static int kernfs_link_sibling(struct kernfs_node
>>> *kn)
>>>        rb_insert_color(&kn->rb, &kn->parent->dir.children);
>>>          /* successfully added, account subdir number */
>>> +    down_write(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
>>>        if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
>>>            kn->parent->dir.subdirs++;
>>>        kernfs_inc_rev(kn->parent);
>>> +    up_write(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
>>>          return 0;
>>>    }
>>> @@ -408,9 +410,11 @@ static bool kernfs_unlink_sibling(struct
>>> kernfs_node *kn)
>>>        if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(&kn->rb))
>>>            return false;
>>>    +    down_write(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
>>>        if (kernfs_type(kn) == KERNFS_DIR)
>>>            kn->parent->dir.subdirs--;
>>>        kernfs_inc_rev(kn->parent);
>>> +    up_write(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_iattr_rwsem);
>>>          rb_erase(&kn->rb, &kn->parent->dir.children);
>>>        RB_CLEAR_NODE(&kn->rb);
>>>