diff options
| author | Hunter Adrian <adrian.hunter@nokia.com> | 2009-05-14 06:32:30 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com> | 2009-05-19 11:01:31 +0300 |
| commit | 8b3884a841f398f6e0a0411d6929d8d9381bb265 (patch) | |
| tree | 01bbbaad779c43b14ea3e809c5fc9271eca257d4 /fs/ubifs/dir.c | |
| parent | 6d6cb0d688d0f262cb4fd5771648b0ac01d4f82c (diff) | |
UBIFS: return error if link and unlink race
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'. Thir is a problem because, for example,
the subsequent 'vfs_unlink(dirB/fileB)' will add the same inode
to the list of orphans.
This problem was reported by J. R. Okajima <hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp>
[Artem: add more comments, amended commit message]
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/ubifs/dir.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | fs/ubifs/dir.c | 19 |
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; |