On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 11:47:15AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2025 at 11:27:10PM +0800, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Recover the private_data to its original one.
> > + */
> > +static struct fops_replacement *_recover_private_data(struct file *filp)
> > +{
> > + struct fops_replacement *fr = filp->private_data;
> > +
> > + filp->private_data = fr->orig_private_data;
> > + return fr;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Replace the private_data to fops_replacement.
> > + */
> > +static void _replace_private_data(struct fops_replacement *fr)
> > +{
> > + fr->filp->private_data = fr;
> > +}
>
> This switching of private_data isn't reasonable, it breaks too much
> stuff. I think I showed a better idea in my sketch.
The approach assumes the filp->private_data should be set once by the
filp->f_op->open() if any. Is it common that the filp->private_data
be updated in other file operations?
> I still think this is a bad use case of revocable, we don't need to
> obfuscate very simple locks in *core* kernel code like this. I'd rather
> see you propose this series without using it.
>
> > +static int fs_revocable_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > +{
> > + struct fops_replacement *fr = _recover_private_data(filp);
> > + int ret = 0;
> > + void *any;
> > +
> > + filp->f_op = fr->orig_fops;
> > +
> > + if (!fr->orig_fops->release)
> > + goto leave;
> > +
> > + REVOCABLE_TRY_ACCESS_SCOPED(fr->rev, any) {
> > + if (!any) {
> > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > + goto leave;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = fr->orig_fops->release(inode, filp);
> > + }
>
> This probably doesn't work out, is likely to make a memory leak.
> It will be hard for the owning driver to free its per-file memory
> without access to release.
Ah, I think this reveals a drawback of the approach.
- Without calling ->release(), some memory may leak.
- With calling ->release(), some UAF may happen.
