linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 1/1] fs/namespace: remove RCU sync for MNT

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: <CAL7ro1FOYPsN3Y18tgHwpg+VB=rU1XB8Xds9P89Mh4T9N98jyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:41:40 +0200
From: Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 
	Lucas Karpinski <lkarpins@...hat.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, raven@...maw.net, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Eric Chanudet <echanude@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/1] fs/namespace: remove RCU sync for MNT_DETACH umount

On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 7:50 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > I always thought the rcu delay was to ensure concurrent path walks "see" the
> >
> > umount not to ensure correct operation of the following mntput()(s).
> >
> >
> > Isn't the sequence of operations roughly, resolve path, lock, deatch,
> > release
> >
> > lock, rcu wait, mntput() subordinate mounts, put path.
>
> The crucial bit is really that synchronize_rcu_expedited() ensures that
> the final mntput() won't happen until path walk leaves RCU mode.
>
> This allows caller's like legitimize_mnt() which are called with only
> the RCU read-lock during lazy path walk to simple check for
> MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT and see that the mnt is about to be killed. If they see
> that this mount is MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT then they know that the mount won't
> be freed until an RCU grace period is up and so they know that they can
> simply put the reference count they took _without having to actually
> call mntput()_.
>
> Because if they did have to call mntput() they might end up shutting the
> filesystem down instead of umount() and that will cause said EBUSY
> errors I mentioned in my earlier mails.

But such behaviour could be kept even without an expedited RCU sync.
Such as in my alternative patch for this:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg270117.html

I.e. we would still guarantee the final mput is called, but not block
the return of the unmount call.


-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Alexander Larsson                                Red Hat, Inc
       alexl@...hat.com         alexander.larsson@...il.com