On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 01:27 +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> sysfs_attach_attr() is called from sysfs_lookup() only, and which in turn
> is called under parent inode's i_mutex from VFS layer.
Ah, I didn't see the parent mutex lock.
Does sysfs support hard links? Where an inode may belong to two
different dentrys?
>
> But you did help in spotting a bug which could happen like this
>
> i_mutext held
> sysfs_lookup()
> -->sysfs_attach_attr()
> --> sysfs_create() fails
> --> sd->s_dentry has a NULL d_inode
> --> sysfs_put() frees the sysfs_dirent
> --> error returned to lookup
> i_mutex released
>
> But the sysfs_dirent with NULL d_inode is never unlinked from
> the parent sysfs_dirent. And later on this happens
But doesn't this only happen in case of no memory?
Thomas, is the system running low on memory?
>
> vfs_readdir()
> i_mutex held
> -->sysfs_readdir()
> --> trips on the freed sysfs_dirent with NULL inode.
>
> I am not sure if it is possible for other thread to see the freed
> sysfs_dirent and trip at sd->s_dentry->d_inode but the sysfs_dirent
> should have been unlinked from the parent sysfs_dirent's s_children list.
>
> > Now the question is, is it safe to add the test for s_dentry->d_inode too.
> > I ask this because the s_dentry is in the process of being filled, and
> > I don't know what effect this will have on what readdir wants. I guess
> > it may be safe, so I'm giving this patch:
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
> >
> > Description:
> >
> > In the process of creating a sysfs attribute, we can have a state
> > where the sysfs descriptor can have a dentry with a NULL inode.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.18-rc1/fs/sysfs/dir.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.18-rc1.orig/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2006-07-12 09:43:10.000000000 -0400
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc1/fs/sysfs/dir.c 2006-07-12 10:01:18.000000000 -0400
> > @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static int sysfs_readdir(struct file * f
> >
> > name = sysfs_get_name(next);
> > len = strlen(name);
> > - if (next->s_dentry)
> > + if (next->s_dentry && next->s_dentry->d_inode)
> > ino = next->s_dentry->d_inode->i_ino;
> > else
> > ino = iunique(sysfs_sb, 2);
> >
>
> I think this patch only fixes the sympton. I have tried to keep the
> assumption of no negative dentries (dentries with NULL d_inode) valid
> in sysfs. So, this does indicate a bug.
Something else that might help is knowing what the other tasks where
doing at the time. Thomas, do you also have the task dump? You can
send that to me offline if you like.
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
