linux-toradex.git/fs/locks.c, branch v4.1.26

locks: fix unlock when fcntl_setlk races with a close

2016-02-03T19:01:44+00:00

[ Upstream commit 7f3697e24dc3820b10f445a4a7d914fc356012d1 ]

Dmitry reported that he was able to reproduce the WARN_ON_ONCE that
fires in locks_free_lock_context when the flc_posix list isn't empty.

The problem turns out to be that we're basically rebuilding the
file_lock from scratch in fcntl_setlk when we discover that the setlk
has raced with a close. If the l_whence field is SEEK_CUR or SEEK_END,
then we may end up with fl_start and fl_end values that differ from
when the lock was initially set, if the file position or length of the
file has changed in the interim.

Fix this by just reusing the same lock request structure, and simply
override fl_type value with F_UNLCK as appropriate. That ensures that
we really are unlocking the lock that was initially set.

While we're there, make sure that we do pop a WARN_ON_ONCE if the
removal ever fails. Also return -EBADF in this event, since that's
what we would have returned if the close had happened earlier.

Cc: Alexander Viro 
Cc: 
Fixes: c293621bbf67 (stale POSIX lock handling)
Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov 
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton 
Acked-by: "J. Bruce Fields" 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

locks: inline posix_lock_file_wait and flock_lock_file_wait

2015-10-27T00:52:00+00:00

commit ee296d7c5709440f8abd36b5b65c6b3e388538d9 upstream.

They just call file_inode and then the corresponding *_inode_file_wait
function. Just make them static inlines instead.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton 
Cc: William Dauchy 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locks: new helpers - flock_lock_inode_wait and posix_lock_inode_wait

2015-10-27T00:52:00+00:00

commit 29d01b22eaa18d8b46091d3c98c6001c49f78e4a upstream.

Allow callers to pass in an inode instead of a filp.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton 
Reviewed-by: "J. Bruce Fields" 
Tested-by: "J. Bruce Fields" 
Cc: William Dauchy 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locks: have flock_lock_file take an inode pointer instead of a filp

2015-10-27T00:51:59+00:00

commit bcd7f78d078ff6197715c1ed070c92aca57ec12c upstream.

...and rename it to better describe how it works.

In order to fix a use-after-free in NFS, we need to be able to remove
locks from an inode after the filp associated with them may have already
been freed. flock_lock_file already only dereferences the filp to get to
the inode, so just change it so the callers do that.

All of the callers already pass in a lock request that has the fl_file
set properly, so we don't need to pass it in individually. With that
change it now only dereferences the filp to get to the inode, so just
push that out to the callers.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton 
Reviewed-by: "J. Bruce Fields" 
Tested-by: "J. Bruce Fields" 
Cc: William Dauchy 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

proc: show locks in /proc/pid/fdinfo/X

2015-04-17T13:04:12+00:00

Let's show locks which are associated with a file descriptor in
its fdinfo file.

Currently we don't have a reliable way to determine who holds a lock.  We
can find some information in /proc/locks, but PID which is reported there
can be wrong.  For example, a process takes a lock, then forks a child and
dies.  In this case /proc/locks contains the parent pid, which can be
reused by another process.

$ cat /proc/locks
...
6: FLOCK  ADVISORY  WRITE 324 00:13:13431 0 EOF
...

$ ps -C rpcbind
  PID TTY          TIME CMD
  332 ?        00:00:00 rpcbind

$ cat /proc/332/fdinfo/4
pos:	0
flags:	0100000
mnt_id:	22
lock:	1: FLOCK  ADVISORY  WRITE 324 00:13:13431 0 EOF

$ ls -l /proc/332/fd/4
lr-x------ 1 root root 64 Mar  5 14:43 /proc/332/fd/4 -> /run/rpcbind.lock

$ ls -l /proc/324/fd/
total 0
lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Feb 27 14:50 0 -> /dev/pts/0
lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Feb 27 14:50 1 -> /dev/pts/0
lrwx------ 1 root root 64 Feb 27 14:49 2 -> /dev/pts/0

You can see that the process with the 324 pid doesn't hold the lock.

This information is required for proper dumping and restoring file
locks.

Signed-off-by: Andrey Vagin 
Cc: Jonathan Corbet 
Cc: Alexander Viro 
Acked-by: Jeff Layton 
Acked-by: "J. Bruce Fields" 
Acked-by: Cyrill Gorcunov 
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov 
Cc: Joe Perches 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

locks: use cmpxchg to assign i_flctx pointer

2015-04-03T13:04:04+00:00

During the v3.20/v4.0 cycle, I had originally had the code manage the
inode->i_flctx pointer using a compare-and-swap operation instead of the
i_lock.

Sasha Levin though hit a problem while testing with trinity that made me
believe that that wasn't safe. At the time, changing the code to protect
the i_flctx pointer seemed to fix the issue, but I now think that was
just coincidence.

The issue was likely the same race that Kirill Shutemov hit while
testing the pre-rc1 v4.0 kernel and that Linus spotted. Due to the way
that the spinlock was dropped in the middle of flock_lock_file, you
could end up with multiple flock locks for the same struct file on the
inode.

Reinstate the use of a CAS operation to assign this pointer since it's
likely to be more efficient and gets the i_lock completely out of the
file locking business.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton

locks: get rid of WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW dead code

2015-04-03T13:04:04+00:00

As Bruce points out, there's no compelling reason to change /proc/locks
output at this point. If we did want to do this, then we'd almost
certainly want to introduce a new file to display this info (maybe via
debugfs?).

Let's remove the dead WE_CAN_BREAK_LSLK_NOW ifdef here and just plan to
stay with the legacy format.

Reported-by: J. Bruce Fields 
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton

locks: change lm_get_owner and lm_put_owner prototypes

2015-04-03T13:04:04+00:00

The current prototypes for these operations are somewhat awkward as they
deal with fl_owners but take struct file_lock arguments. In the future,
we'll want to be able to take references without necessarily dealing
with a struct file_lock.

Change them to take fl_owner_t arguments instead and have the callers
deal with assigning the values to the file_lock structs.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton

locks: don't allocate a lock context for an F_UNLCK request

2015-04-03T13:04:03+00:00

In the event that we get an F_UNLCK request on an inode that has no lock
context, there is no reason to allocate one. Change
locks_get_lock_context to take a "type" pointer and avoid allocating a
new context if it's F_UNLCK.

Then, fix the callers to return appropriately if that function returns
NULL.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton

locks: Add lockdep assertion for blocked_lock_lock

2015-04-03T13:04:03+00:00

Annonate insert, remove and iterate function that we need
blocked_lock_lock held.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner 
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton