Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:21:56 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: shave work on failed file open |
| |
On Thu, 28 Sept 2023 at 07:44, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote: > > The issue I see with the current __fget_files_rcu() is that the > "file->f_mode & mask" is no longer effective in its current position, > it would have to be moved down below the get_file_rcu() call.
Yes, you're right.
But moving it down below the "re-check that the fdt pointer and the file pointer still matches" should be easy and sufficient.
> There are also some weird get_file_rcu() users in other places like > BPF's task_file_seq_get_next and in gfs2_glockfd_next_file that do > weird stuff without the recheck, especially gfs2_glockfd_next_file > even looks at the inodes of files without taking a reference (which > seems a little dodgy but maybe actually currently works because inodes > are also RCU-freed?).
The inodes are also RCU-free'd, but that is indeed dodgy.
I think it happens to work, and we actually have a somewhat similar pattern in the RCU lookup code (except with dentry->d_inode, not file->f_inode), because as you say the inode data structure itself is rcu-free'd, but more importantly, that code does the "get_file_rcu()" afterwards.
And yes, right now that works fine, because it will fail if the file f_count goes down to zero.
And f_count will go down to zero before we really tear down the inode with
file->f_op->release(inode, file);
and (more importantly) the dput -> dentry_kill -> dentry_unlink_inode -> release.
So that get_file_rcu() will currently protect against any "oh, the inode is stale and about to be released".
But yes, that protection would be broken by SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU, since then the "f_count is zero" is no longer a final thing.
It's fixable by having the same "double check the file table" that I do think we should do regardless. That get_file_rcu() pattern may *work*, but it's very very dodgy.
Linus
| |