Re: [PATCH 15/22] fanotify: Release SRCU lock when waiting for userspace response

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> When userspace task processing fanotify permission events screws up and
> does not respond, fsnotify_mark_srcu SRCU is held indefinitely which
> causes further hangs in the whole notification subsystem. Although we
> cannot easily solve the problem of operations blocked waiting for
> response from userspace, we can at least somewhat localize the damage by
> dropping SRCU lock before waiting for userspace response and reacquiring
> it when userspace responds.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> ---

Looks good. one nit below.
Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>


>  fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
> index 2e8ca885fb3e..284d2d112ad2 100644
> --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
> +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,10 @@ static int fanotify_merge(struct list_head *list, struct fsnotify_event *event)
>
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FANOTIFY_ACCESS_PERMISSIONS
>  static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
> -                                struct fanotify_perm_event_info *event)
> +                                struct fsnotify_mark *inode_mark,
> +                                struct fsnotify_mark *vfsmount_mark,
> +                                struct fanotify_perm_event_info *event,
> +                                int *srcu_idx)
>  {
>         int ret;
>
> @@ -69,6 +72,15 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>
>         wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
>
> +       if (!fsnotify_prepare_user_wait(inode_mark, vfsmount_mark, srcu_idx)) {

Since it is not clear for reader of this code the conditions where
fsnotify_prepare_user_wait() can fail, a comment here would be nice
to explain the choice of ALLOW

> +               event->response = FAN_ALLOW;
> +               goto out;
> +       }
> +
> +       wait_event(group->fanotify_data.access_waitq, event->response);
> +
> +       fsnotify_finish_user_wait(inode_mark, vfsmount_mark, srcu_idx);
> +out:
>         /* userspace responded, convert to something usable */
>         switch (event->response) {
>         case FAN_ALLOW:
> @@ -220,7 +232,8 @@ static int fanotify_handle_event(struct fsnotify_group *group,
>
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FANOTIFY_ACCESS_PERMISSIONS
>         if (mask & FAN_ALL_PERM_EVENTS) {
> -               ret = fanotify_get_response(group, FANOTIFY_PE(fsn_event));
> +               ret = fanotify_get_response(group, inode_mark, fanotify_mark,
> +                                           FANOTIFY_PE(fsn_event), srcu_idx);
>                 fsnotify_destroy_event(group, fsn_event);
>         }
>  #endif
> --
> 2.10.2
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux