3.16.57-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Al Viro <[email protected]> commit 3b821409632ab778d46e807516b457dfa72736ed upstream. In case when dentry passed to lock_parent() is protected from freeing only by the fact that it's on a shrink list and trylock of parent fails, we could get hit by __dentry_kill() (and subsequent dentry_kill(parent)) between unlocking dentry and locking presumed parent. We need to recheck that dentry is alive once we lock both it and parent *and* postpone rcu_read_unlock() until after that point. Otherwise we could return a pointer to struct dentry that already is rcu-scheduled for freeing, with ->d_lock held on it; caller's subsequent attempt to unlock it can end up with memory corruption. Signed-off-by: Al Viro <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <[email protected]> --- fs/dcache.c | 11 ++++++++--- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- a/fs/dcache.c +++ b/fs/dcache.c @@ -590,11 +590,16 @@ again: spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock); goto again; } - rcu_read_unlock(); - if (parent != dentry) + if (parent != dentry) { spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED); - else + if (unlikely(dentry->d_lockref.count < 0)) { + spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock); + parent = NULL; + } + } else { parent = NULL; + } + rcu_read_unlock(); return parent; }
