On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:27:05AM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 01:51:18PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 11:05:26AM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 04:55:15PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> > > > index 1b46439..6156135 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/namei.c
> > > > @@ -3658,6 +3658,7 @@ static int vfs_rename_other(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> > > > struct inode *new_dir, struct dentry *new_dentry)
> > > > {
> > > > struct inode *target = new_dentry->d_inode;
> > > > + struct inode *source = old_dentry->d_inode;
> > > > int error;
> > > >
> > > > error = security_inode_rename(old_dir, old_dentry, new_dir, new_dentry);
> > > > @@ -3665,8 +3666,7 @@ static int vfs_rename_other(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> > > > return error;
> > > >
> > > > dget(new_dentry);
> > > > - if (target)
> > > > - mutex_lock(&target->i_mutex);
> > > > + lock_two_nondirectories(source, target);
> > > >
> > > > error = -EBUSY;
> > > > if (d_mountpoint(old_dentry)||d_mountpoint(new_dentry))
> > > > @@ -3681,8 +3681,7 @@ static int vfs_rename_other(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
> > > > if (!(old_dir->i_sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_RENAME_DOES_D_MOVE))
> > > > d_move(old_dentry, new_dentry);
> > > > out:
> > > > - if (target)
> > > > - mutex_unlock(&target->i_mutex);
> > > > + unlock_two_nondirectories(source, target);
> > > > dput(new_dentry);
> > > > return error;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > This change also fixes a race between rename and mount.
> > >
> > > Apparently we avoid to rename source or target if they are
> > > mountpoint. But nothing prevents source being the mountpoint
> > > after d_mountpoint check because we do not hold its i_mutex.
> > >
> > > Thus we are actually able to rename a mountpoint.
> > >
> > > Rename directory should also need this care.
> >
> > Do you have any practical way to reproduce that race?
> >
> > --b.
>
> Rename a mountpoint? Of course.
>
> One script ...
>
> #!/bin/bash
> while true
> do
> mount -t sysfs nodev mnt && umount mnt
> done
>
>
>
> The other ...
>
> #!/bin/bash
> while true
> do
> mv mnt mnt2 && mv mnt2 mnt
> done
>
>
>
> Run them simultaneously in two consoles. When mount keeps reporting
> 'mount point mnt does not exist', stop them, then you will see the
> familiar sysfs under mnt2.
Oh, thanks, for some reason I assumed it would be more difficult to
reproduce.
I think we can do this--I don't think it even requires any care to the
locking order of the renamed vs the victim directory, though I can't
completely convince myself of that.
Is it necessary to fix this, though? Does it cause any problems other
than unexpected behavior?
--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
