lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
Subject[PATCH resend] block_dev: don't test bdev->bd_contains when it is not stable.

bdev->bd_contains is not stable before calling __blkdev_get().
When __blkdev_get() is called on a parition with ->bd_openers == 0
it sets
bdev->bd_contains = bdev;
which is not correct for a partition.
After a call to __blkdev_get() succeeds, ->bd_openers will be > 0
and then ->bd_contains is stable.

When FMODE_EXCL is used, blkdev_get() calls
bd_start_claiming() -> bd_prepare_to_claim() -> bd_may_claim()

This call happens before __blkdev_get() is called, so ->bd_contains
is not stable. So bd_may_claim() cannot safely use ->bd_contains.
It currently tries to use it, and this can lead to a BUG_ON().

This happens when a whole device is open with a bd_holder (in use by
dm in my particular example) and two threads race to open a partition
for the first time, one opening with O_EXCL and one without.

The thread that doesn't use O_EXCL gets through blkdev_get() to
__blkdev_get(), gains the ->bd_mutex, and sets bdev->bd_contains = bdev;

Immediately thereafter the other thread, using FMODE_EXCL, calls
bd_start_claiming from blkdev_get(). This should fail because the
whole device has a holder, but because bdev->bd_contains == bdev
bd_may_claim() incorrectly reports success.

This thread continues and blocks on bd_mutex.
The first thread then sets bdev->bd_contains correctly and drops the mutex.
The thread using FMODE_EXCL then continues and when it calls bd_may_claim()
again in:
BUG_ON(!bd_may_claim(bdev, whole, holder));
The BUG_ON fires.

Fix this by removing the dependency on ->bd_contains in
bd_may_claim(). As bd_may_claim() have direct access to the whole
device, it can simply test if the target bdev is the whole device.

Fixes: 6b4517a7913a ("block: implement bd_claiming and claiming block")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org (v2.6.35+)
Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
---


No reply after 2 weeks, and this didn't appear in -next, so I'm adding a
couple more addresses - hopefully someone can take it.
Thanks,
NeilBrown


fs/block_dev.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
index 05b553368bb4..9166b9f63d33 100644
--- a/fs/block_dev.c
+++ b/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -832,7 +832,7 @@ static bool bd_may_claim(struct block_device *bdev, struct block_device *whole,
return true; /* already a holder */
else if (bdev->bd_holder != NULL)
return false; /* held by someone else */
- else if (bdev->bd_contains == bdev)
+ else if (whole == bdev)
return true; /* is a whole device which isn't held */

else if (whole->bd_holder == bd_may_claim)
--
2.11.0
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-12 01:30    [W:0.031 / U:6.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site