Merge branch 'linux-next' of git://git.infradead.org/ubifs-2.6

* 'linux-next' of git://git.infradead.org/ubifs-2.6:
  UBIFS: start using hrtimers
  hrtimer: export ktime_add_safe
  UBIFS: do not forget to register BDI device
  UBIFS: allow sync option in rootflags
  UBIFS: remove dead code
  UBIFS: use anonymous device
  UBIFS: return proper error code if the compr is not present
  UBIFS: return error if link and unlink race
  UBIFS: reset no_space flag after inode deletion

1 files changed, 19 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
index f55d523c52bb..552fb0111fff 100644
--- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
@@ -528,6 +528,25 @@ static int ubifs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir,
 		inode->i_nlink, dir->i_ino);
 	ubifs_assert(mutex_is_locked(&dir->i_mutex));
 	ubifs_assert(mutex_is_locked(&inode->i_mutex));
+
+	/*
+	 * Return -ENOENT if we've raced with unlink and i_nlink is 0.  Doing
+	 * otherwise has the potential to corrupt the orphan inode list.
+	 *
+	 * Indeed, consider a scenario when 'vfs_link(dirA/fileA)' and
+	 * 'vfs_unlink(dirA/fileA, dirB/fileB)' race. 'vfs_link()' does not
+	 * lock 'dirA->i_mutex', so this is possible. Both of the functions
+	 * lock 'fileA->i_mutex' though. Suppose 'vfs_unlink()' wins, and takes
+	 * 'fileA->i_mutex' mutex first. Suppose 'fileA->i_nlink' is 1. In this
+	 * case 'ubifs_unlink()' will drop the last reference, and put 'inodeA'
+	 * to the list of orphans. After this, 'vfs_link()' will link
+	 * 'dirB/fileB' to 'inodeA'. This is a problem because, for example,
+	 * the subsequent 'vfs_unlink(dirB/fileB)' will add the same inode
+	 * to the list of orphans.
+	 */
+	 if (inode->i_nlink == 0)
+		 return -ENOENT;
+
 	err = dbg_check_synced_i_size(inode);
 	if (err)
 		return err;