> On Nov 7, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-11-07 at 18:42 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 2022, at 09:12, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 7, 2022, at 5:48 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2022-11-06 at 14:02 -0500, trondmy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> vfs_lock_file() expects the struct file_lock to be fully initialised by
>>>>> the caller. Re-exported NFSv3 has been seen to Oops if the fl_file field
>>>>> is NULL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: aec158242b87 ("lockd: set fl_owner when unlocking files")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/lockd/svcsubs.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c b/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c
>>>>> index e1c4617de771..3515f17eaf3f 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/lockd/svcsubs.c
>>>>> @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ nlm_delete_file(struct nlm_file *file)
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static int nlm_unlock_files(struct nlm_file *file, fl_owner_t owner)
>>>>> +static int nlm_unlock_files(struct nlm_file *file, const struct file_lock *fl)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct file_lock lock;
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -184,12 +184,15 @@ static int nlm_unlock_files(struct nlm_file *file, fl_owner_t owner)
>>>>> lock.fl_type = F_UNLCK;
>>>>> lock.fl_start = 0;
>>>>> lock.fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
>>>>> - lock.fl_owner = owner;
>>>>> - if (file->f_file[O_RDONLY] &&
>>>>> - vfs_lock_file(file->f_file[O_RDONLY], F_SETLK, &lock, NULL))
>>>>> + lock.fl_owner = fl->fl_owner;
>>>>> + lock.fl_pid = fl->fl_pid;
>>>>> + lock.fl_flags = FL_POSIX;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + lock.fl_file = file->f_file[O_RDONLY];
>>>>> + if (lock.fl_file && vfs_lock_file(lock.fl_file, F_SETLK, &lock, NULL))
>>>>> goto out_err;
>>>>> - if (file->f_file[O_WRONLY] &&
>>>>> - vfs_lock_file(file->f_file[O_WRONLY], F_SETLK, &lock, NULL))
>>>>> + lock.fl_file = file->f_file[O_WRONLY];
>>>>> + if (lock.fl_file && vfs_lock_file(lock.fl_file, F_SETLK, &lock, NULL))
>>>>> goto out_err;
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> out_err:
>>>>> @@ -226,7 +229,7 @@ nlm_traverse_locks(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file,
>>>>> if (match(lockhost, host)) {
>>>>>
>>>>> spin_unlock(&flctx->flc_lock);
>>>>> - if (nlm_unlock_files(file, fl->fl_owner))
>>>>> + if (nlm_unlock_files(file, fl))
>>>>> return 1;
>>>>> goto again;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Good catch.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we ought to roll an initializer function for file_locks to
>>>> make it harder for callers to miss setting some fields like this? One
>>>> idea: we could change vfs_lock_file to *not* take a file argument, and
>>>> insist that the caller fill out fl_file when calling it? That would make
>>>> it harder to screw this up.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, let's take this patch in the interim while we consider
>>>> whether and how to clean this up.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Since this doesn't fix breakage in 6.1-rc, I plan to take it for 6.2.
>>> If all y'all feel the fix is more urgent than that, let me know.
>>
>>
>> It is relevant to fixing https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216582
>> No idea how urgent that is...
>>
>
> Seems like it's technically a regression then. Prior to aec158242b87,
> those locks were being ignored. Now that we actually try to unlock them,
> this causes a crash.
The reporter can reproduce a crash back to v5.16. So, it's a regression,
but not one in v6.1-rc. I'm trying to be more strict about that to prevent
quickly backporting fixes that have bugs.
> I move for sending it to mainline sooner rather than later.
I'd rather give this one more time in linux-next. The Fixes: tag will
trigger automatic backport once v6.2-rc1 closes. The fix is available
to the reporter to apply to his kernel.
--
Chuck Lever
