Re: [PATCH] Fix a race condition between ->i_mapping and iput()

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> 
> This race became a cause of oops, and can reproduce by the following.
> 
>     while true; do
> 	dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/.static/dev/hdg1 bs=512 count=1000 & sync
>     done
> 
> 
> This race condition was between __sync_single_inode() and iput().
> 
>           cpu0 (fs's inode)                 cpu1 (bdev's inode)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                        close("/dev/hda2")
>                                        [...]
> __sync_single_inode()
>    /* copy the bdev's ->i_mapping */
>    mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> 
>                                        generic_forget_inode()
>                                           bdev_clear_inode()
> 					     /* restre the fs's ->i_mapping */
> 				             inode->i_mapping = &inode->i_data;
> 				          /* bdev's inode was freed */
>                                           destroy_inode(inode);
> 
>    if (wait) {
>       /* dereference a freed bdev's mapping->host */
>       filemap_fdatawait(mapping);  /* Oops */
> 
> Since __sync_signle_inode() is only taking a ref-count of fs's inode,
> the another process can be close() and freeing the bdev's inode while
> writing fs's inode.  So, __sync_signle_inode() accesses the freed
> ->i_mapping, oops.
> 
> This patch takes ref-count of bdev's inode for fs's inode before
> setting a ->i_mapping, and the clear_inode() of fs's inode does iput().
> So, if fs's inode is still living, bdev's inode shouldn't be freed.
> 
> This lifetime rule may be a poor, but very simple.
> 
> Umm... should we use an another rule to free it more early?
> (e.g. if bdev's inode become I_FREEING, it should call bd_forget()
> before releasing the inode_lock. And some place should call
> igrab(->i_mapping->host->i_count) and iput())
> 
> 
> What do you think, comment?

Maybe.   This code seems relatively straightforward though.

It would be preferable to have a couple of comments in there explaining
what the new refcounting is there for.

>  
>...
>
>  void bd_forget(struct inode *inode)
>  {
> +	struct block_device *old = NULL;
> +
>  	spin_lock(&bdev_lock);
> -	if (inode->i_bdev)
> +	if (inode->i_bdev) {
> +		if (inode->i_sb != blockdev_superblock)
> +			old = inode->i_bdev;
>  		__bd_forget(inode);
> +	}
>  	spin_unlock(&bdev_lock);
> +
> +	if (old)
> +		iput(old->bd_inode);
>  }

We're missing an atomic_inc(i_count) here?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/