On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 08:59 -0500, Dave Wysochanski wrote:
> Commit 73ca100 broke the code that prevents the client from deleting
> a silly renamed dentry. This affected "delete on last close"
> semantics as after that commit, nothing prevented removal of
> silly-renamed files. As a result, a process holding a file open
> could easily get an ESTALE on the file in a directory where some
> other process issued 'rm -rf some_dir_containing_the_file' twice.
> Before the commit, any attempt at unlinking silly renamed files would
> fail inside may_delete() with -EBUSY because of the
> DCACHE_NFSFS_RENAMED flag. The following testcase demonstrates
> the problem:
> tail -f /nfsmnt/dir/file &
> rm -rf /nfsmnt/dir
> rm -rf /nfsmnt/dir
> # second removal does not fail, 'tail' process receives ESTALE
Hi Dave,
I'm not sure I understand why we must do the dropping/moving of the
dentries inside nfs_async_rename_done. Why isn't something like the
attached patch sufficient?
Cheers,
Trond
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com
From 90769817a805292646623cedd9d5455d31b63bc2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:53:43 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] NFS: Don't allow NFS silly-renamed files to be deleted, no
signal
Commit 73ca100 broke the code that prevents the client from deleting
a silly renamed dentry. This affected "delete on last close"
semantics as after that commit, nothing prevented removal of
silly-renamed files. As a result, a process holding a file open
could easily get an ESTALE on the file in a directory where some
other process issued 'rm -rf some_dir_containing_the_file' twice.
Before the commit, any attempt at unlinking silly renamed files would
fail inside may_delete() with -EBUSY because of the
DCACHE_NFSFS_RENAMED flag. The following testcase demonstrates
the problem:
tail -f /nfsmnt/dir/file &
rm -rf /nfsmnt/dir
rm -rf /nfsmnt/dir
# second removal does not fail, 'tail' process receives ESTALE
The problem with the above commit is that it unhashes the old and
new dentries from the lookup path, even in the normal case when
a signal is not encountered and it would have been safe to call
d_move. Unfortunately the old dentry has the special
DCACHE_NFSFS_RENAMED flag set on it. Unhashing has the
side-effect that future lookups call d_alloc(), allocating a new
dentry without the special flag for any silly-renamed files. As a
result, subsequent calls to unlink silly renamed files do not fail
but allow the removal to go through. This will result in ESTALE
errors for any other process doing operations on the file.
To fix this, go back to using d_move on success.
For the signal case, it's unclear what we may safely do beyond d_drop.
Reported-by: Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
fs/nfs/unlink.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/unlink.c b/fs/nfs/unlink.c
index d26a32f..6a8368e 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/unlink.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/unlink.c
@@ -335,20 +335,14 @@ static void nfs_async_rename_done(struct rpc_task *task, void *calldata)
struct inode *old_dir = data->old_dir;
struct inode *new_dir = data->new_dir;
struct dentry *old_dentry = data->old_dentry;
- struct dentry *new_dentry = data->new_dentry;
if (!NFS_PROTO(old_dir)->rename_done(task, old_dir, new_dir)) {
rpc_restart_call_prepare(task);
return;
}
- if (task->tk_status != 0) {
+ if (task->tk_status != 0)
nfs_cancel_async_unlink(old_dentry);
- return;
- }
-
- d_drop(old_dentry);
- d_drop(new_dentry);
}
/**
@@ -549,6 +543,15 @@ nfs_sillyrename(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
error = rpc_wait_for_completion_task(task);
if (error == 0)
error = task->tk_status;
+ switch (error) {
+ case 0:
+ nfs_set_verifier(dentry, nfs_save_change_attribute(dir));
+ d_move(dentry, sdentry);
+ break;
+ case -ERESTARTSYS:
+ d_drop(dentry);
+ d_drop(sdentry);
+ }
rpc_put_task(task);
out_dput:
dput(sdentry);
--
1.8.1.2
