On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:28:51AM -0800, Nikhilesh Reddy wrote:
> On Mon 01 Feb 2016 11:15:56 AM PST, Jann Horn wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 10:56:27AM -0800, Nikhilesh Reddy wrote:
> >>diff --git a/fs/fuse/passthrough.c b/fs/fuse/passthrough.c
> >[...]
> >>+static ssize_t fuse_passthrough_read_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb,
> >>+ struct iov_iter *iter, int do_write)
> >>+{
> >>+ ssize_t ret_val;
> >>+ struct fuse_file *ff;
> >>+ struct file *fuse_file, *passthrough_filp;
> >>+ struct inode *fuse_inode, *passthrough_inode;
> >>+
> >>+ ff = iocb->ki_filp->private_data;
> >>+ fuse_file = iocb->ki_filp;
> >>+ passthrough_filp = ff->passthrough_filp;
> >>+
> >>+ /* lock passthrough file to prevent it from being released */
> >>+ get_file(passthrough_filp);
> >>+ iocb->ki_filp = passthrough_filp;
> >>+ fuse_inode = fuse_file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> >>+ passthrough_inode = file_inode(passthrough_filp);
> >>+
> >>+ if (do_write) {
> >>+ if (!passthrough_filp->f_op->write_iter)
> >>+ return -EIO;
> >>+ ret_val = passthrough_filp->f_op->write_iter(iocb, iter);
> >>+
> >>+ if (ret_val >= 0 || ret_val == -EIOCBQUEUED) {
> >>+ fsstack_copy_inode_size(fuse_inode, passthrough_inode);
> >>+ fsstack_copy_attr_times(fuse_inode, passthrough_inode);
> >>+ }
> >>+ } else {
> >>+ if (!passthrough_filp->f_op->read_iter)
> >>+ return -EIO;
> >>+ ret_val = passthrough_filp->f_op->read_iter(iocb, iter);
> >>+ if (ret_val >= 0 || ret_val == -EIOCBQUEUED)
> >>+ fsstack_copy_attr_atime(fuse_inode, passthrough_inode);
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >>+ iocb->ki_filp = fuse_file;
> >>+
> >>+ /* unlock passthrough file */
> >>+ fput(passthrough_filp);
> >
> >Why the get_file() and fput() in this method? This doesn't look right. There
> >is no lock you're releasing between get_file() and fput(). What are they
> >intended for?
>
> Hi
>
> Thanks for reviewing the code.
>
> The passthrough file could be released under our feet say if the userspace
> fuse daemon crashed or was killed ( while we are processing the read or the
> write) causing bad things to happen.
> The calls here are to increase the count temporarily and then decrease it
> so that we dont release in the middle of a write and everything is
> gracefully handled...
>
> I have a comment right before the get_file call above saying the same thing.
> Please let me know if you have any more questions.
If that is the case, why can't the passthrough file be released before the
get_file() call, e.g. while the core processing the filesystem read request
is entering fuse_passthrough_read_write_iter()?
As far as I can tell, you can drop the get_file() and fput() calls.
fuse_setup_passthrough() already took a reference to the file for you, that
reference can only be dropped in fuse_passthrough_release(), and the VFS
ensures that no release call happens while a read or write is pending.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
