IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
pathwalk. This series is a result of code audit (the second round
of it) and it should deal with most of that stuff. Exceptions: ntfs3
->d_hash()/->d_compare() and ceph_d_revalidate(). Up to maintainers (a
note for NTFS folks - when documentation says that a method may not block,
it *does* imply that blocking allocations are to be avoided. Really).
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEABYIAB0WIQQqUNBr3gm4hGXdBJlZ7Krx/gZQ6wUCZdroDAAKCRBZ7Krx/gZQ
60dKAQCzp6rYr3ye4nylho9Rzu8LEpH04TuNf3C6JuyUaNHxHwEAvNLatZsyFnmV
Ksp2Rg/IlKPNtQgYJ8xPxv9DFmNe8gI=
=47Un
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'pull-fixes.pathwalk-rcu-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs
Pull RCU pathwalk fixes from Al Viro:
"We still have some races in filesystem methods when exposed to RCU
pathwalk. This series is a result of code audit (the second round of
it) and it should deal with most of that stuff.
Still pending: ntfs3 ->d_hash()/->d_compare() and ceph_d_revalidate().
Up to maintainers (a note for NTFS folks - when documentation says
that a method may not block, it *does* imply that blocking allocations
are to be avoided. Really)"
[ More explanations for people who aren't familiar with the vagaries of
RCU path walking: most of it is hidden from filesystems, but if a
filesystem actively participates in the low-level path walking it
needs to make sure the fields involved in that walk are RCU-safe.
That "actively participate in low-level path walking" includes things
like having its own ->d_hash()/->d_compare() routines, or by having
its own directory permission function that doesn't just use the common
helpers. Having a ->d_revalidate() function will also have this issue.
Note that instead of making everything RCU safe you can also choose to
abort the RCU pathwalk if your operation cannot be done safely under
RCU, but that obviously comes with a performance penalty. One common
pattern is to allow the simple cases under RCU, and abort only if you
need to do something more complicated.
So not everything needs to be RCU-safe, and things like the inode etc
that the VFS itself maintains obviously already are. But these fixes
tend to be about properly RCU-delaying things like ->s_fs_info that
are maintained by the filesystem and that got potentially released too
early. - Linus ]
* tag 'pull-fixes.pathwalk-rcu-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs:
ext4_get_link(): fix breakage in RCU mode
cifs_get_link(): bail out in unsafe case
fuse: fix UAF in rcu pathwalks
procfs: make freeing proc_fs_info rcu-delayed
procfs: move dropping pde and pid from ->evict_inode() to ->free_inode()
nfs: fix UAF on pathwalk running into umount
nfs: make nfs_set_verifier() safe for use in RCU pathwalk
afs: fix __afs_break_callback() / afs_drop_open_mmap() race
hfsplus: switch to rcu-delayed unloading of nls and freeing ->s_fs_info
exfat: move freeing sbi, upcase table and dropping nls into rcu-delayed helper
affs: free affs_sb_info with kfree_rcu()
rcu pathwalk: prevent bogus hard errors from may_lookup()
fs/super.c: don't drop ->s_user_ns until we free struct super_block itself
66a97c2ec9