Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] get mount write in __dentry_open()

[Dave Hansen]

On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 20:31 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 17:08 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > diff -puN fs/namei.c~get-write-in-__dentry_open fs/namei.c
> > > > --- lxc/fs/namei.c~get-write-in-__dentry_open	2007-10-03 14:44:52.000000000 -0700
> > > > +++ lxc-dave/fs/namei.c	2007-10-04 18:02:48.000000000 -0700
> > > > @@ -1621,14 +1621,6 @@ int may_open(struct nameidata *nd, int a
> > > >  			return -EACCES;
> > > >  
> > > >  		flag &= ~O_TRUNC;
> > > > -	} else if (flag & FMODE_WRITE) {
> > > > -		/*
> > > > -		 * effectively: !special_file()
> > > > -		 * balanced by __fput()
> > > > -		 */
> > > > -		error = mnt_want_write(nd->mnt);
> > > > -		if (error)
> > > > -			return error;
> > > >  	}
> > > 
> > > Maybe readonly should still be checked here, so that the order of
> > > error checking doesn't change.  If racing with a read-only remount the
> > > order is irrelevant anyway.  Something like this?
> > > 
> > > 	} else if (flag & FMODE_WRITE && __mnt_is_readonly(nd->mnt)) {
> > > 		return -EROFS
> > > 	}
> > 
> > I think that would be a bug if anything actually managed to trip that
> > code.  all of the may_open() calls should have been covered by the
> > __dentry_open() mnt writer.
> 
> AFACIS, __dentry_open() will normally be called later than may_open().
> And we don't want it earlier, because ->open() may have side affects,
> that could be unsafe if done before permission checking.

I actually check the mount write count before the ->open() in
__dentry_open().  The truncates are also definitely wrapped in their own
mnt_want_write() calls now.

> > > And they should be added around do_truncate() as well, since you
> > > remove the protection from may_open().
> > > 
> > > This one introduces an interesting race between ro-remount and
> > > open(O_TRUNC), where the truncate can succeed but the open fail with
> > > EROFS.  Is that a problem?
> > 
> > You're right, this does introduce that race, and it is relatively hard
> > to fix properly.  But, the 'return a filp' patch makes it easy to fix.
> > I've put a temporary kludge in the updated version of this patch, and
> > fixed it properly in that later patch.  
> 
> If you fix this properly, that should take care of the first problem
> as well.

Yup.  New series coming up. 

-- Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/