Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:16:30PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:06:57PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm also having trouble understanding exactly when ->d_name is stable here.
>> >> AFAICS, unfortunately the VFS has an edge case where a dentry can be moved
>> >> without its parent's ->i_rwsem being held. It happens when a subdirectory is
>> >> "found" under multiple names. The VFS doesn't support directory hard links, so
>> >> if it finds a second link to a directory, it just moves the whole dentry tree to
>> >> the new location. This can happen if a filesystem image is corrupted and
>> >> contains directory hard links. Coincidentally, it can also happen in an
>> >> encrypted directory due to the no-key name => normal name transition...
>> >
>> > Sorry, I think I got this slightly wrong. The move does happen with the
>> > parent's ->i_rwsem held, but it's for read, not for write. First, before
>> > ->lookup is called, the ->i_rwsem of the parent directory is taken for read.
>> > ->lookup() calls d_splice_alias() which can call __d_unalias() which does the
>> > __d_move(). If the old alias is in a different directory (which cannot happen
>> > in that fscrypt case, but can happen in the general "directory hard links"
>> > case), __d_unalias() takes that directory's ->i_rwsem for read too.
>> >
>> > So it looks like the parent's ->i_rwsem does indeed exclude moves of child
>> > dentries, but only if it's taken for *write*. So I guess you can rely on that;
>> > it's just a bit more subtle than it first appears. Though, some of your
>> > explanation seems to assume that a read lock is sufficient ("In __lookup_slow,
>> > either the parent inode is locked by the caller (lookup_slow) ..."), so maybe
>> > there is still a problem.
>>
>> I think I'm missing something on your clarification. I see your point
>> about __d_unalias, and I see in the case where alias->d_parent !=
>> dentry->d_parent we acquire the parent inode read lock:
>>
>> static int __d_unalias(struct inode *inode,
>> struct dentry *dentry, struct dentry *alias)
>> {
>> ...
>> m1 = &dentry->d_sb->s_vfs_rename_mutex;
>> if (!inode_trylock_shared(alias->d_parent->d_inode))
>> goto out_err;
>> }
>> this __d_move Can do a dentry move and race with d_revalidate even
>> though it has the parent read lock.
>>
>> > So it looks like the parent's ->i_rwsem does indeed exclude moves of child
>> > dentries, but only if it's taken for *write*. So I guess you can rely on that;
>>
>> We can get away of it with acquiring the d_lock as you suggested, I
>> think. But can you clarify the above? I wanna make sure I didn't miss
>> anything. I am indeed relying only on the read lock here, as you can see.
>
> In my first email I thought that __d_move() can be called without the parent
> inode's i_rwsem held at all. In my second email I realized that it is always
> called with at least a read (shared) lock.
I see. Thank you. We are on the same page now. I was confused by
this part of your second comment:
>> > I guess you can rely on that; it's just a bit more subtle than it
>> > first appears. Though, some of your explanation seems to assume
>> > that a read lock is sufficient ("In __lookup_slow, either the
>> > parent inode is locked by the caller (lookup_slow) ..."),
...because I was then failing to see, after learning about the __d_move
case, how I could rely on the inode read lock. But, as I now realize,
__d_move is not called for negative dentries, so lookup_slow is indeed
safe.
> The question is what kind of parent i_rwsem lock is guaranteed to be held by the
> caller of ->d_revalidate() when the name comparison is done. Based on the
> above, it needs to be at least a write (exclusive) lock to exclude __d_move()
> without taking d_lock. However, your analysis (in the commit message of "libfs:
> Validate negative dentries in case-insensitive directories") only talks about
> i_rwsem being "taken", without saying whether it's for read or write. One thing
> you mentioned as taking i_rwsem is lookup_slow, but that only takes it for read.
> That seems like a problem, as it makes your analysis not correct.
My understanding and explanation was that a read lock should be enough
at all times, despite the __d_move case. Any time d_revalidate is
called for a (LOOKUP_CREATE | LOOKUP_RENAME_TARGET), it holds at least
the read lock, preventing concurrent changes to d_name of negative
dentries.
I will review the places that touch ->d_name again and I will keep the
patch as-is and update my explanation to include this case.
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
