April 2022 - Linux-stable-mirror

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Fix to add refcount once page is set private" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.14-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 3b67db8a6ca83e6ff90b756d3da0c966f61cd37b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:41 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix to add refcount once page is set private MM defined the rule [1] very clearly that once page was set with PG_private flag, we should increment the refcount in that page, also main flows like pageout(), migrate_page() will assume there is one additional page reference count if page_has_private() returns true. Otherwise, we may get a BUG in page migration: page:0000000080d05b9d refcount:-1 mapcount:0 mapping:000000005f4d82a8 index:0xe2 pfn:0x14c12 aops:ubifs_file_address_operations [ubifs] ino:8f1 dentry name:"f30e" flags: 0x1fffff80002405(locked|uptodate|owner_priv_1|private|node=0| zone=1|lastcpupid=0x1fffff) page dumped because: VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_count(page) != 0) ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at include/linux/page_ref.h:184! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP CPU: 3 PID: 38 Comm: kcompactd0 Not tainted 5.15.0-rc5 RIP: 0010:migrate_page_move_mapping+0xac3/0xe70 Call Trace: ubifs_migrate_page+0x22/0xc0 [ubifs] move_to_new_page+0xb4/0x600 migrate_pages+0x1523/0x1cc0 compact_zone+0x8c5/0x14b0 kcompactd+0x2bc/0x560 kthread+0x18c/0x1e0 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 Before the time, we should make clean a concept, what does refcount means in page gotten from grab_cache_page_write_begin(). There are 2 situations: Situation 1: refcount is 3, page is created by __page_cache_alloc. TYPE_A - the write process is using this page TYPE_B - page is assigned to one certain mapping by calling __add_to_page_cache_locked() TYPE_C - page is added into pagevec list corresponding current cpu by calling lru_cache_add() Situation 2: refcount is 2, page is gotten from the mapping's tree TYPE_B - page has been assigned to one certain mapping TYPE_A - the write process is using this page (by calling page_cache_get_speculative()) Filesystem releases one refcount by calling put_page() in xxx_write_end(), the released refcount corresponds to TYPE_A (write task is using it). If there are any processes using a page, page migration process will skip the page by judging whether expected_page_refs() equals to page refcount. The BUG is caused by following process: PA(cpu 0) kcompactd(cpu 1) compact_zone ubifs_write_begin page_a = grab_cache_page_write_begin add_to_page_cache_lru lru_cache_add pagevec_add // put page into cpu 0's pagevec (refcnf = 3, for page creation process) ubifs_write_end SetPagePrivate(page_a) // doesn't increase page count ! unlock_page(page_a) put_page(page_a) // refcnt = 2 [...] PB(cpu 0) filemap_read filemap_get_pages add_to_page_cache_lru lru_cache_add __pagevec_lru_add // traverse all pages in cpu 0's pagevec __pagevec_lru_add_fn SetPageLRU(page_a) isolate_migratepages isolate_migratepages_block get_page_unless_zero(page_a) // refcnt = 3 list_add(page_a, from_list) migrate_pages(from_list) __unmap_and_move move_to_new_page ubifs_migrate_page(page_a) migrate_page_move_mapping expected_page_refs get 3 (migration[1] + mapping[1] + private[1]) release_pages put_page_testzero(page_a) // refcnt = 3 page_ref_freeze // refcnt = 0 page_ref_dec_and_test(0 - 1 = -1) page_ref_unfreeze VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(-1 != 0, page) UBIFS doesn't increase the page refcount after setting private flag, which leads to page migration task believes the page is not used by any other processes, so the page is migrated. This causes concurrent accessing on page refcount between put_page() called by other process(eg. read process calls lru_cache_add) and page_ref_unfreeze() called by migration task. Actually zhangjun has tried to fix this problem [2] by recalculating page refcnt in ubifs_migrate_page(). It's better to follow MM rules [1], because just like Kirill suggested in [2], we need to check all users of page_has_private() helper. Like f2fs does in [3], fix it by adding/deleting refcount when setting/clearing private for a page. BTW, according to [4], we set 'page->private' as 1 because ubifs just simply SetPagePrivate(). And, [5] provided a common helper to set/clear page private, ubifs can use this helper following the example of iomap, afs, btrfs, etc. Jump [6] to find a reproducer. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2b19b3c4-2bc4-15fa-15cc-27a13e5c7af1@aol.com [2] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mtd/msg04018.html [3] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1903.0/03313.html [4] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20210422154705.GO3596236@casper.in… [5] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200517214718.468-1-guoqing.jiang@cloud.ionos.… [6] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214961 Fixes: 1e51764a3c2ac0 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/file.c b/fs/ubifs/file.c index 5cfa28cd00cd..6b45a037a047 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/file.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/file.c @@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ static int ubifs_write_end(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping, } if (!PagePrivate(page)) { - SetPagePrivate(page); + attach_page_private(page, (void *)1); atomic_long_inc(&c->dirty_pg_cnt); __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(page); } @@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ static int do_writepage(struct page *page, int len) release_existing_page_budget(c); atomic_long_dec(&c->dirty_pg_cnt); - ClearPagePrivate(page); + detach_page_private(page); ClearPageChecked(page); kunmap(page); @@ -1304,7 +1304,7 @@ static void ubifs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset, release_existing_page_budget(c); atomic_long_dec(&c->dirty_pg_cnt); - ClearPagePrivate(page); + detach_page_private(page); ClearPageChecked(page); } @@ -1471,8 +1471,8 @@ static int ubifs_migrate_page(struct address_space *mapping, return rc; if (PagePrivate(page)) { - ClearPagePrivate(page); - SetPagePrivate(newpage); + detach_page_private(page); + attach_page_private(newpage, (void *)1); } if (mode != MIGRATE_SYNC_NO_COPY) @@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@ static int ubifs_releasepage(struct page *page, gfp_t unused_gfp_flags) return 0; ubifs_assert(c, PagePrivate(page)); ubifs_assert(c, 0); - ClearPagePrivate(page); + detach_page_private(page); ClearPageChecked(page); return 1; } @@ -1567,7 +1567,7 @@ static vm_fault_t ubifs_vm_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf) else { if (!PageChecked(page)) ubifs_convert_page_budget(c); - SetPagePrivate(page); + attach_page_private(page, (void *)1); atomic_long_inc(&c->dirty_pg_cnt); __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(page); }

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From a6dab6607d4681d227905d5198710b575dbdb519 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:38 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile operations UBIFS should make sure the flash has enough space to store dirty (Data that is newer than disk) data (in memory), space budget is exactly designed to do that. If space budget calculates less data than we need, 'make_reservation()' will do more work(return -ENOSPC if no free space lelf, sometimes we can see "cannot reserve xxx bytes in jhead xxx, error -28" in ubifs error messages) with ubifs inodes locked, which may effect other syscalls. A simple way to decide how much space do we need when make a budget: See how much space is needed by 'make_reservation()' in ubifs_jnl_xxx() function according to corresponding operation. It's better to report ENOSPC in ubifs_budget_space(), as early as we can. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Fixes: 1e51764a3c2ac05 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index faca567ef06b..ae082a0be2a3 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -428,15 +428,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, { struct inode *inode; struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; /* - * Budget request settings: new dirty inode, new direntry, - * budget for dirtied inode will be released via writeback. + * Budget request settings: new inode, new direntry, changing the + * parent directory inode. + * Allocate budget separately for new dirtied inode, the budget will + * be released via writeback. */ dbg_gen("dent '%pd', mode %#hx in dir ino %lu", @@ -979,7 +982,8 @@ static int ubifs_mkdir(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_inode *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; int err, sz_change; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1 }; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct fscrypt_name nm; /*

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From a6dab6607d4681d227905d5198710b575dbdb519 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:38 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile operations UBIFS should make sure the flash has enough space to store dirty (Data that is newer than disk) data (in memory), space budget is exactly designed to do that. If space budget calculates less data than we need, 'make_reservation()' will do more work(return -ENOSPC if no free space lelf, sometimes we can see "cannot reserve xxx bytes in jhead xxx, error -28" in ubifs error messages) with ubifs inodes locked, which may effect other syscalls. A simple way to decide how much space do we need when make a budget: See how much space is needed by 'make_reservation()' in ubifs_jnl_xxx() function according to corresponding operation. It's better to report ENOSPC in ubifs_budget_space(), as early as we can. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Fixes: 1e51764a3c2ac05 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index faca567ef06b..ae082a0be2a3 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -428,15 +428,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, { struct inode *inode; struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; /* - * Budget request settings: new dirty inode, new direntry, - * budget for dirtied inode will be released via writeback. + * Budget request settings: new inode, new direntry, changing the + * parent directory inode. + * Allocate budget separately for new dirtied inode, the budget will + * be released via writeback. */ dbg_gen("dent '%pd', mode %#hx in dir ino %lu", @@ -979,7 +982,8 @@ static int ubifs_mkdir(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_inode *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; int err, sz_change; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1 }; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct fscrypt_name nm; /*

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile" failed to apply to 4.19-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From a6dab6607d4681d227905d5198710b575dbdb519 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:38 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile operations UBIFS should make sure the flash has enough space to store dirty (Data that is newer than disk) data (in memory), space budget is exactly designed to do that. If space budget calculates less data than we need, 'make_reservation()' will do more work(return -ENOSPC if no free space lelf, sometimes we can see "cannot reserve xxx bytes in jhead xxx, error -28" in ubifs error messages) with ubifs inodes locked, which may effect other syscalls. A simple way to decide how much space do we need when make a budget: See how much space is needed by 'make_reservation()' in ubifs_jnl_xxx() function according to corresponding operation. It's better to report ENOSPC in ubifs_budget_space(), as early as we can. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Fixes: 1e51764a3c2ac05 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index faca567ef06b..ae082a0be2a3 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -428,15 +428,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, { struct inode *inode; struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; /* - * Budget request settings: new dirty inode, new direntry, - * budget for dirtied inode will be released via writeback. + * Budget request settings: new inode, new direntry, changing the + * parent directory inode. + * Allocate budget separately for new dirtied inode, the budget will + * be released via writeback. */ dbg_gen("dent '%pd', mode %#hx in dir ino %lu", @@ -979,7 +982,8 @@ static int ubifs_mkdir(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_inode *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; int err, sz_change; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1 }; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct fscrypt_name nm; /*

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.14-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From a6dab6607d4681d227905d5198710b575dbdb519 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:38 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile operations UBIFS should make sure the flash has enough space to store dirty (Data that is newer than disk) data (in memory), space budget is exactly designed to do that. If space budget calculates less data than we need, 'make_reservation()' will do more work(return -ENOSPC if no free space lelf, sometimes we can see "cannot reserve xxx bytes in jhead xxx, error -28" in ubifs error messages) with ubifs inodes locked, which may effect other syscalls. A simple way to decide how much space do we need when make a budget: See how much space is needed by 'make_reservation()' in ubifs_jnl_xxx() function according to corresponding operation. It's better to report ENOSPC in ubifs_budget_space(), as early as we can. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Fixes: 1e51764a3c2ac05 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index faca567ef06b..ae082a0be2a3 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -428,15 +428,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, { struct inode *inode; struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; /* - * Budget request settings: new dirty inode, new direntry, - * budget for dirtied inode will be released via writeback. + * Budget request settings: new inode, new direntry, changing the + * parent directory inode. + * Allocate budget separately for new dirtied inode, the budget will + * be released via writeback. */ dbg_gen("dent '%pd', mode %#hx in dir ino %lu", @@ -979,7 +982,8 @@ static int ubifs_mkdir(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_inode *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; int err, sz_change; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1 }; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct fscrypt_name nm; /*

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile" failed to apply to 4.9-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.9-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From a6dab6607d4681d227905d5198710b575dbdb519 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:38 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Rectify space amount budget for mkdir/tmpfile operations UBIFS should make sure the flash has enough space to store dirty (Data that is newer than disk) data (in memory), space budget is exactly designed to do that. If space budget calculates less data than we need, 'make_reservation()' will do more work(return -ENOSPC if no free space lelf, sometimes we can see "cannot reserve xxx bytes in jhead xxx, error -28" in ubifs error messages) with ubifs inodes locked, which may effect other syscalls. A simple way to decide how much space do we need when make a budget: See how much space is needed by 'make_reservation()' in ubifs_jnl_xxx() function according to corresponding operation. It's better to report ENOSPC in ubifs_budget_space(), as early as we can. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Fixes: 1e51764a3c2ac05 ("UBIFS: add new flash file system") Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index faca567ef06b..ae082a0be2a3 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -428,15 +428,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, { struct inode *inode; struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; /* - * Budget request settings: new dirty inode, new direntry, - * budget for dirtied inode will be released via writeback. + * Budget request settings: new inode, new direntry, changing the + * parent directory inode. + * Allocate budget separately for new dirtied inode, the budget will + * be released via writeback. */ dbg_gen("dent '%pd', mode %#hx in dir ino %lu", @@ -979,7 +982,8 @@ static int ubifs_mkdir(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_inode *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; int err, sz_change; - struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1 }; + struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1, + .dirtied_ino = 1}; struct fscrypt_name nm; /*

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 60eb3b9c9f11206996f57cb89521824304b305ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:37 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and writeback work 'ui->dirty' is not protected by 'ui_mutex' in function do_tmpfile() which may race with ubifs_write_inode[wb_workfn] to access/update 'ui->dirty', finally dirty space is released twice. open(O_TMPFILE) wb_workfn do_tmpfile ubifs_budget_space(ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1}) d_tmpfile // mark inode(tmpfile) dirty ubifs_jnl_update // without holding tmpfile's ui_mutex mark_inode_clean(ui) if (ui->dirty) ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui) // release first time ubifs_write_inode mutex_lock(&ui->ui_mutex) ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui) // release second time mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex) ui->dirty = 0 Run generic/476 can reproduce following message easily (See reproducer in [Link]): UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: c->bi.dd_growth >= 0, in fs/ubifs/budget.c:554 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-ubifs_0_0) Call Trace: ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_release_budget+0x468/0x5a0 [ubifs] ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget+0x53/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_write_inode+0x121/0x1f0 [ubifs] ... wb_workfn+0x283/0x7b0 Fix it by holding tmpfile ubifs inode lock during ubifs_jnl_update(). Similar problem exists in whiteout renaming, but previous fix("ubifs: Rename whiteout atomically") has solved the problem. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214765 Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index f2a6b45bfdae..faca567ef06b 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -397,6 +397,32 @@ static struct inode *create_whiteout(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry) return ERR_PTR(err); } +/** + * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes. + * @inode1: first inode + * @inode2: second inode + * + * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because + * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple + * wrapper function. + */ +static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) +{ + mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1); + mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2); +} + +/** + * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes. + * @inode1: first inode + * @inode2: second inode + */ +static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) +{ + mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex); +} + static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode) { @@ -404,7 +430,7 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; - struct ubifs_inode *ui, *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); + struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; @@ -452,18 +478,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, instantiated = 1; mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex); - mutex_lock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + lock_2_inodes(dir, inode); err = ubifs_jnl_update(c, dir, &nm, inode, 1, 0); if (err) goto out_cancel; - mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode); ubifs_release_budget(c, &req); return 0; out_cancel: - mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode); out_inode: make_bad_inode(inode); if (!instantiated) @@ -690,32 +716,6 @@ static int ubifs_dir_release(struct inode *dir, struct file *file) return 0; } -/** - * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes. - * @inode1: first inode - * @inode2: second inode - * - * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because - * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple - * wrapper function. - */ -static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) -{ - mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1); - mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2); -} - -/** - * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes. - * @inode1: first inode - * @inode2: second inode - */ -static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) -{ - mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex); - mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex); -} - static int ubifs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry) {

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 60eb3b9c9f11206996f57cb89521824304b305ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:37 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and writeback work 'ui->dirty' is not protected by 'ui_mutex' in function do_tmpfile() which may race with ubifs_write_inode[wb_workfn] to access/update 'ui->dirty', finally dirty space is released twice. open(O_TMPFILE) wb_workfn do_tmpfile ubifs_budget_space(ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1}) d_tmpfile // mark inode(tmpfile) dirty ubifs_jnl_update // without holding tmpfile's ui_mutex mark_inode_clean(ui) if (ui->dirty) ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui) // release first time ubifs_write_inode mutex_lock(&ui->ui_mutex) ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui) // release second time mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex) ui->dirty = 0 Run generic/476 can reproduce following message easily (See reproducer in [Link]): UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: c->bi.dd_growth >= 0, in fs/ubifs/budget.c:554 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-ubifs_0_0) Call Trace: ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_release_budget+0x468/0x5a0 [ubifs] ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget+0x53/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_write_inode+0x121/0x1f0 [ubifs] ... wb_workfn+0x283/0x7b0 Fix it by holding tmpfile ubifs inode lock during ubifs_jnl_update(). Similar problem exists in whiteout renaming, but previous fix("ubifs: Rename whiteout atomically") has solved the problem. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214765 Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index f2a6b45bfdae..faca567ef06b 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -397,6 +397,32 @@ static struct inode *create_whiteout(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry) return ERR_PTR(err); } +/** + * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes. + * @inode1: first inode + * @inode2: second inode + * + * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because + * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple + * wrapper function. + */ +static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) +{ + mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1); + mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2); +} + +/** + * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes. + * @inode1: first inode + * @inode2: second inode + */ +static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) +{ + mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex); +} + static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode) { @@ -404,7 +430,7 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; - struct ubifs_inode *ui, *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); + struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; @@ -452,18 +478,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, instantiated = 1; mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex); - mutex_lock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + lock_2_inodes(dir, inode); err = ubifs_jnl_update(c, dir, &nm, inode, 1, 0); if (err) goto out_cancel; - mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode); ubifs_release_budget(c, &req); return 0; out_cancel: - mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode); out_inode: make_bad_inode(inode); if (!instantiated) @@ -690,32 +716,6 @@ static int ubifs_dir_release(struct inode *dir, struct file *file) return 0; } -/** - * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes. - * @inode1: first inode - * @inode2: second inode - * - * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because - * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple - * wrapper function. - */ -static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) -{ - mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1); - mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2); -} - -/** - * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes. - * @inode1: first inode - * @inode2: second inode - */ -static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) -{ - mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex); - mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex); -} - static int ubifs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry) {

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and" failed to apply to 4.19-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.19-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 60eb3b9c9f11206996f57cb89521824304b305ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:37 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and writeback work 'ui->dirty' is not protected by 'ui_mutex' in function do_tmpfile() which may race with ubifs_write_inode[wb_workfn] to access/update 'ui->dirty', finally dirty space is released twice. open(O_TMPFILE) wb_workfn do_tmpfile ubifs_budget_space(ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1}) d_tmpfile // mark inode(tmpfile) dirty ubifs_jnl_update // without holding tmpfile's ui_mutex mark_inode_clean(ui) if (ui->dirty) ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui) // release first time ubifs_write_inode mutex_lock(&ui->ui_mutex) ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui) // release second time mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex) ui->dirty = 0 Run generic/476 can reproduce following message easily (See reproducer in [Link]): UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: c->bi.dd_growth >= 0, in fs/ubifs/budget.c:554 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-ubifs_0_0) Call Trace: ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_release_budget+0x468/0x5a0 [ubifs] ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget+0x53/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_write_inode+0x121/0x1f0 [ubifs] ... wb_workfn+0x283/0x7b0 Fix it by holding tmpfile ubifs inode lock during ubifs_jnl_update(). Similar problem exists in whiteout renaming, but previous fix("ubifs: Rename whiteout atomically") has solved the problem. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214765 Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index f2a6b45bfdae..faca567ef06b 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -397,6 +397,32 @@ static struct inode *create_whiteout(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry) return ERR_PTR(err); } +/** + * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes. + * @inode1: first inode + * @inode2: second inode + * + * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because + * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple + * wrapper function. + */ +static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) +{ + mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1); + mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2); +} + +/** + * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes. + * @inode1: first inode + * @inode2: second inode + */ +static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) +{ + mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex); +} + static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode) { @@ -404,7 +430,7 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; - struct ubifs_inode *ui, *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); + struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; @@ -452,18 +478,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, instantiated = 1; mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex); - mutex_lock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + lock_2_inodes(dir, inode); err = ubifs_jnl_update(c, dir, &nm, inode, 1, 0); if (err) goto out_cancel; - mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode); ubifs_release_budget(c, &req); return 0; out_cancel: - mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode); out_inode: make_bad_inode(inode); if (!instantiated) @@ -690,32 +716,6 @@ static int ubifs_dir_release(struct inode *dir, struct file *file) return 0; } -/** - * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes. - * @inode1: first inode - * @inode2: second inode - * - * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because - * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple - * wrapper function. - */ -static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) -{ - mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1); - mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2); -} - -/** - * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes. - * @inode1: first inode - * @inode2: second inode - */ -static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) -{ - mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex); - mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex); -} - static int ubifs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry) {

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree

by gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org

The patch below does not apply to the 4.14-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <stable(a)vger.kernel.org>. thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ From 60eb3b9c9f11206996f57cb89521824304b305ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2021 11:22:37 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and writeback work 'ui->dirty' is not protected by 'ui_mutex' in function do_tmpfile() which may race with ubifs_write_inode[wb_workfn] to access/update 'ui->dirty', finally dirty space is released twice. open(O_TMPFILE) wb_workfn do_tmpfile ubifs_budget_space(ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1}) d_tmpfile // mark inode(tmpfile) dirty ubifs_jnl_update // without holding tmpfile's ui_mutex mark_inode_clean(ui) if (ui->dirty) ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui) // release first time ubifs_write_inode mutex_lock(&ui->ui_mutex) ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui) // release second time mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex) ui->dirty = 0 Run generic/476 can reproduce following message easily (See reproducer in [Link]): UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert failed: c->bi.dd_growth >= 0, in fs/ubifs/budget.c:554 UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to read-only mode, error -22 Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-ubifs_0_0) Call Trace: ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs] ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_release_budget+0x468/0x5a0 [ubifs] ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget+0x53/0x80 [ubifs] ubifs_write_inode+0x121/0x1f0 [ubifs] ... wb_workfn+0x283/0x7b0 Fix it by holding tmpfile ubifs inode lock during ubifs_jnl_update(). Similar problem exists in whiteout renaming, but previous fix("ubifs: Rename whiteout atomically") has solved the problem. Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE") Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214765 Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1(a)huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard(a)nod.at> diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c index f2a6b45bfdae..faca567ef06b 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c @@ -397,6 +397,32 @@ static struct inode *create_whiteout(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry) return ERR_PTR(err); } +/** + * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes. + * @inode1: first inode + * @inode2: second inode + * + * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because + * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple + * wrapper function. + */ +static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) +{ + mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1); + mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2); +} + +/** + * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes. + * @inode1: first inode + * @inode2: second inode + */ +static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) +{ + mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex); + mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex); +} + static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode) { @@ -404,7 +430,7 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info; struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1}; struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 }; - struct ubifs_inode *ui, *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir); + struct ubifs_inode *ui; int err, instantiated = 0; struct fscrypt_name nm; @@ -452,18 +478,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir, instantiated = 1; mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex); - mutex_lock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + lock_2_inodes(dir, inode); err = ubifs_jnl_update(c, dir, &nm, inode, 1, 0); if (err) goto out_cancel; - mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode); ubifs_release_budget(c, &req); return 0; out_cancel: - mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex); + unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode); out_inode: make_bad_inode(inode); if (!instantiated) @@ -690,32 +716,6 @@ static int ubifs_dir_release(struct inode *dir, struct file *file) return 0; } -/** - * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes. - * @inode1: first inode - * @inode2: second inode - * - * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because - * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple - * wrapper function. - */ -static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) -{ - mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1); - mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2); -} - -/** - * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes. - * @inode1: first inode - * @inode2: second inode - */ -static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2) -{ - mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex); - mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex); -} - static int ubifs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry) {

2 years, 9 months

1
0
0 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Linux-stable-mirror April 2022