On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:51 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> I kept it dumb and was about to reply that your solution introduces more
> code when it seemed we wanted to keep this very simple for now.
> But then I saw that find_next_opened_fd() already exists as
> find_next_fd(). So it's actually not bad compared to what I sent in v1.
> So - with some small tweaks (need to test it and all now) - how do we
> feel about?:
[...]
> static int __close_next_open_fd(struct files_struct *files, unsigned *curfd, unsigned maxfd)
> {
> struct file *file = NULL;
> unsigned fd;
> struct fdtable *fdt;
>
> spin_lock(&files->file_lock);
> fdt = files_fdtable(files);
> fd = find_next_fd(fdt, *curfd);
find_next_fd() finds free fds, not used ones.
> if (fd >= fdt->max_fds || fd > maxfd)
> goto out_unlock;
>
> file = fdt->fd[fd];
> rcu_assign_pointer(fdt->fd[fd], NULL);
> __put_unused_fd(files, fd);
You can't do __put_unused_fd() if the old pointer in fdt->fd[fd] was
NULL - because that means that the fd has been reserved by another
thread that is about to put a file pointer in there, and if you
release the fd here, that messes up the refcounting (or hits the
BUG_ON() in __fd_install()).
> out_unlock:
> spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
>
> if (!file)
> return -EBADF;
>
> *curfd = fd;
> filp_close(file, files);
> return 0;
> }
>
> int __close_range(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd, unsigned max_fd)
> {
> if (fd > max_fd)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> while (fd <= max_fd) {
Note that with a pattern like this, you have to be careful about what
happens if someone gives you max_fd==0xffffffff - then this condition
is always true and the loop can not terminate this way.
> if (__close_next_fd(files, &fd, maxfd))
> break;
(obviously it can still terminate this way)
> cond_resched();
> fd++;
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
