On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 05:27:52PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:02:35 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 11:03:13AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c b/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
> > > index 5ac00c4..d601a77 100644
> > > --- a/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c
> > ...
> > > @@ -566,14 +574,13 @@ static ssize_t write_versions(struct file *file, char *buf, size_t size)
> > > return len;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static ssize_t write_ports(struct file *file, char *buf, size_t size)
> > > +static ssize_t __write_ports(struct file *file, char *buf, size_t size)
> > > {
> > > if (size == 0) {
> > > int len = 0;
> > > - lock_kernel();
> > > +
> > > if (nfsd_serv)
> > > len = svc_xprt_names(nfsd_serv, buf, 0);
> > > - unlock_kernel();
> >
> > svc_xprt_names() has to be prepared to accept NULL as a first parameter
> > (since we've got nothing here any longer to guarantee that nfsd_serv
> > won't change after we've checked it). And, indeed, it does check for
> > that (with its local copy, which won't change. So that's OK. But then
> > could we just ditch this redundant check here? It's confusing.
> >
> > Oops, but: what happens if something like this races with svc_destroy,
> > so svc_xprt_names() is passed a pointer to freed memory?
> >
>
> We do have a guarantee that nfsd_serv won't change after it's checked
> here. The new nfsd_mutex protects it. write_ports has been renamed to
> __write_ports, and write_ports has been turned into a wrapper that runs
> the entire original function under the nfsd_mutex. We also have nfsd
> hold the nfsd_mutex when svc_exit_thread is called, so svc_destroy
> should also be called while holding it. That should serialize access
> to the nfsd_serv.
Of course, you're right; thanks for setting me straight!
>
> I think you're correct that we can get rid of the redundant null
> pointer check in __write_ports here though.
OK.--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
