On 2018-10-05, Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What if we took rename_lock (call it nd->r_seq) at the start of the
> > resolution, and then only tried the __d_path-style check
> >
> > if (read_seqretry(&rename_lock, nd->r_seq) ||
> > read_seqretry(&mount_lock, nd->m_seq))
> > /* do the __d_path lookup. */
> >
> > That way you would only hit the slow path if there were concurrent
> > renames or mounts *and* you are doing a path resolution with
> > AT_THIS_ROOT or AT_BENEATH. I've attached a modified patch that does
> > this (and after some testing it also appears to work).
>
> Yeah, I think that might do the job.
*phew* I was all out of other ideas. :P
> > ---
> > fs/namei.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> > index 6f995e6de6b1..12c9be175cb4 100644
> > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > +++ b/fs/namei.c
> > @@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ struct nameidata {
> > struct path root;
> > struct inode *inode; /* path.dentry.d_inode */
> > unsigned int flags;
> > - unsigned seq, m_seq;
> > + unsigned seq, m_seq, r_seq;
> > int last_type;
> > unsigned depth;
> > int total_link_count;
> > @@ -1375,6 +1375,27 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> > return -EXDEV;
> > break;
> > }
> > + if (unlikely((nd->flags & (LOOKUP_BENEATH | LOOKUP_CHROOT)) &&
> > + (read_seqretry(&rename_lock, nd->r_seq) ||
> > + read_seqretry(&mount_lock, nd->m_seq)))) {
> > + char *pathbuf, *pathptr;
> > +
> > + nd->r_seq = read_seqbegin(&rename_lock);
> > + /* Cannot take m_seq here. */
> > +
> > + pathbuf = kmalloc(PATH_MAX, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + if (!pathbuf)
> > + return -ECHILD;
> > + pathptr = __d_path(&nd->path, &nd->root, pathbuf, PATH_MAX);
> > + kfree(pathbuf);
>
> You're doing this check before actually looking up the parent, right?
> So as long as I don't trigger the "path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root)"
> check that you do for O_BENEATH, escaping up by one level is possible,
> right? You should probably move this check so that it happens after
> following "..".
Yup, you're right. I'll do that.
> (Also: I assume that you're going to get rid of that memory allocation
> in a future version.)
Sure. Would you prefer adding some scratch space in nameidata, or that I
change __d_path so it accepts NULL as the buffer (and thus it doesn't
actually do any string operations)?
> > if (nd->path.dentry != nd->path.mnt->mnt_root) {
> > int ret = path_parent_directory(&nd->path);
> > if (ret)
> > @@ -2269,6 +2311,9 @@ static const char *path_init(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags)
> > nd->last_type = LAST_ROOT; /* if there are only slashes... */
> > nd->flags = flags | LOOKUP_JUMPED | LOOKUP_PARENT;
> > nd->depth = 0;
> > + nd->m_seq = read_seqbegin(&mount_lock);
> > + nd->r_seq = read_seqbegin(&rename_lock);
>
> This means that now, attempting to perform a lookup while something is
> holding the rename_lock will spin on the lock. I don't know whether
> that's a problem in practice though. Does anyone on this thread know
> whether this is problematic?
I could make it so that we only take &rename_lock
if (nd->flags & (FOLLOW_BENEATH | FOLLOW_CHROOT)),
since it's not used outside of that path.
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
