On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 01:31 +0900, hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a race condition in ubifs?
> Here is a scenario.
>
> Process A Process B
> ----------------------+---------------------------
> create("dirA/fileA"); |
> unlink("dirA/fileA"); | link("dirA/fileA", "dirB/fileB");
> | unlink("dirB/fileB");
> ----------------------+---------------------------
From: Hunter Adrian <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 06:32:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] UBIFS: return error if link and unlink race
Consider a scenario when 'vfs_link(dirA/fileA)' and
'vfs_unlink(dirA/fileA, dirB/fileB)' race. 'vfs_link()' does not
lock 'dirA->i_mutex', so this is possible. Both of the functions
lock 'fileA->i_mutex' though. Suppose 'vfs_unlink()' wins, and takes
'fileA->i_mutex' mutex first. Suppose 'fileA->i_nlink' is 1. In this
case 'ubifs_unlink()' will drop the last reference, and put 'inodeA'
to the list of orphans. After this, 'vfs_link()' will link
'dirB/fileB' to 'inodeA'. Thir is a problem because, for example,
the subsequent 'vfs_unlink(dirB/fileB)' will add the same inode
to the list of orphans.
This problem was reported by J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[Artem: add more comments, amended commit message]
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@xxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ubifs/dir.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
index f55d523..552fb01 100644
--- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
@@ -528,6 +528,25 @@ static int ubifs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir,
inode->i_nlink, dir->i_ino);
ubifs_assert(mutex_is_locked(&dir->i_mutex));
ubifs_assert(mutex_is_locked(&inode->i_mutex));
+
+ /*
+ * Return -ENOENT if we've raced with unlink and i_nlink is 0. Doing
+ * otherwise has the potential to corrupt the orphan inode list.
+ *
+ * Indeed, consider a scenario when 'vfs_link(dirA/fileA)' and
+ * 'vfs_unlink(dirA/fileA, dirB/fileB)' race. 'vfs_link()' does not
+ * lock 'dirA->i_mutex', so this is possible. Both of the functions
+ * lock 'fileA->i_mutex' though. Suppose 'vfs_unlink()' wins, and takes
+ * 'fileA->i_mutex' mutex first. Suppose 'fileA->i_nlink' is 1. In this
+ * case 'ubifs_unlink()' will drop the last reference, and put 'inodeA'
+ * to the list of orphans. After this, 'vfs_link()' will link
+ * 'dirB/fileB' to 'inodeA'. This is a problem because, for example,
+ * the subsequent 'vfs_unlink(dirB/fileB)' will add the same inode
+ * to the list of orphans.
+ */
+ if (inode->i_nlink == 0)
+ return -ENOENT;
+
err = dbg_check_synced_i_size(inode);
if (err)
return err;
--
1.6.0.6
--
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)
--
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
