Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote: > IOW, all of those should be unconditional.
Fair point. How about the attached, then? David --- commit 1aa76514c426150af429d111cec256e81729fa6f Author: David Howells <[email protected]> Date: Tue Jul 3 22:35:28 2018 +0100 vfs: Locking fix for sget_fc() In sget_fc(), don't drop the s_umount lock before calling destroy_unused_super() as that will drop the lock. Fixes: 8a2e54b8af88 ("vfs: Implement a filesystem superblock creation/configuration context") Reported-by: Eric Biggers <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Howells <[email protected]> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c index 43400f5fa33a..dccd397751b1 100644 --- a/fs/super.c +++ b/fs/super.c @@ -516,19 +516,12 @@ struct super_block *sget_fc(struct fs_context *fc, continue; if (fc->user_ns != old->s_user_ns) { spin_unlock(&sb_lock); - if (s) { - up_write(&s->s_umount); - destroy_unused_super(s); - } + destroy_unused_super(s); return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY); } if (!grab_super(old)) goto retry; - if (s) { - up_write(&s->s_umount); - destroy_unused_super(s); - s = NULL; - } + destroy_unused_super(s); return old; } } @@ -545,7 +538,6 @@ struct super_block *sget_fc(struct fs_context *fc, if (err) { s->s_fs_info = NULL; spin_unlock(&sb_lock); - up_write(&s->s_umount); destroy_unused_super(s); return ERR_PTR(err); }
