| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230822110551.6386dd5d@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:05:51 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-brauner tree with the djw-vfs
tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs-brauner tree got a conflict in:
fs/super.c
between commits:
880b9577855e ("fs: distinguish between user initiated freeze and kernel initiated freeze")
59ba4fdd2d1f ("fs: wait for partially frozen filesystems")
from the djw-vfs tree and commits:
0ed33598ddf3 ("super: use locking helpers")
5e8749141521 ("super: wait for nascent superblocks")
from the vfs-brauner tree.
I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as
necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any
non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer
when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc fs/super.c
index da68584815e4,a00e9f706f0f..000000000000
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@@ -1027,12 -1196,13 +1196,13 @@@ void emergency_remount(void
static void do_thaw_all_callback(struct super_block *sb)
{
- down_write(&sb->s_umount);
- if (sb->s_root && sb->s_flags & SB_BORN) {
+ bool born = super_lock_excl(sb);
+
+ if (born && sb->s_root) {
emergency_thaw_bdev(sb);
- thaw_super_locked(sb);
+ thaw_super_locked(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE);
} else {
- up_write(&sb->s_umount);
+ super_unlock_excl(sb);
}
}
@@@ -1644,24 -1836,6 +1836,24 @@@ static void sb_freeze_unlock(struct sup
percpu_up_write(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level);
}
+static int wait_for_partially_frozen(struct super_block *sb)
+{
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ do {
+ unsigned short old = sb->s_writers.frozen;
+
- up_write(&sb->s_umount);
++ super_unlock_excl(sb);
+ ret = wait_var_event_killable(&sb->s_writers.frozen,
+ sb->s_writers.frozen != old);
- down_write(&sb->s_umount);
++ __super_lock_excl(sb);
+ } while (ret == 0 &&
+ sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_UNFROZEN &&
+ sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE);
+
+ return ret;
+}
+
/**
* freeze_super - lock the filesystem and force it into a consistent state
* @sb: the super to lock
@@@ -1711,34 -1874,10 +1903,34 @@@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb
int ret;
atomic_inc(&sb->s_active);
- down_write(&sb->s_umount);
+ __super_lock_excl(sb);
+
+retry:
+ if (sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE) {
+ if (sb->s_writers.freeze_holders & who) {
+ deactivate_locked_super(sb);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
+ WARN_ON(sb->s_writers.freeze_holders == 0);
+
+ /*
+ * Someone else already holds this type of freeze; share the
+ * freeze and assign the active ref to the freeze.
+ */
+ sb->s_writers.freeze_holders |= who;
- up_write(&sb->s_umount);
++ super_unlock_excl(sb);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
if (sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_UNFROZEN) {
- deactivate_locked_super(sb);
- return -EBUSY;
+ ret = wait_for_partially_frozen(sb);
+ if (ret) {
+ deactivate_locked_super(sb);
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ goto retry;
}
if (!(sb->s_flags & SB_BORN)) {
@@@ -1748,10 -1887,8 +1940,10 @@@
if (sb_rdonly(sb)) {
/* Nothing to do really... */
+ sb->s_writers.freeze_holders |= who;
sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
+ wake_up_var(&sb->s_writers.frozen);
- up_write(&sb->s_umount);
+ super_unlock_excl(sb);
return 0;
}
@@@ -1795,11 -1930,9 +1987,11 @@@
* For debugging purposes so that fs can warn if it sees write activity
* when frozen is set to SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE, and for thaw_super().
*/
+ sb->s_writers.freeze_holders |= who;
sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
+ wake_up_var(&sb->s_writers.frozen);
lockdep_sb_freeze_release(sb);
- up_write(&sb->s_umount);
+ super_unlock_excl(sb);
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(freeze_super);
@@@ -1814,24 -1941,8 +2006,24 @@@ static int thaw_super_locked(struct sup
{
int error;
- if (sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE) {
+ if (sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE) {
+ if (!(sb->s_writers.freeze_holders & who)) {
- up_write(&sb->s_umount);
++ super_unlock_excl(sb);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Freeze is shared with someone else. Release our hold and
+ * drop the active ref that freeze_super assigned to the
+ * freezer.
+ */
+ if (sb->s_writers.freeze_holders & ~who) {
+ sb->s_writers.freeze_holders &= ~who;
+ deactivate_locked_super(sb);
+ return 0;
+ }
+ } else {
- up_write(&sb->s_umount);
+ super_unlock_excl(sb);
return -EINVAL;
}
@@@ -1867,19 -1974,13 +2059,19 @@@ out
/**
* thaw_super -- unlock filesystem
* @sb: the super to thaw
+ * @who: context that wants to freeze
*
- * Unlocks the filesystem and marks it writeable again after freeze_super().
+ * Unlocks the filesystem and marks it writeable again after freeze_super()
+ * if there are no remaining freezes on the filesystem.
+ *
+ * @who should be:
+ * * %FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE if userspace wants to thaw the fs;
+ * * %FREEZE_HOLDER_KERNEL if the kernel wants to thaw the fs.
*/
-int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
+int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb, enum freeze_holder who)
{
- down_write(&sb->s_umount);
+ __super_lock_excl(sb);
- return thaw_super_locked(sb);
+ return thaw_super_locked(sb, who);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(thaw_super);
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists