Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 04:15:10 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Mark Fasheh <mark@fasheh.com>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+7a8ba368b47fdefca61e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
        Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>
Subject: Re: KASAN: use-after-free Read in path_lookupat
Message-ID: <20190326041509.GZ2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <0000000000006946d2057bbd0eef@google.com>
 <CAHk-=wiijJMTw=nTj_ED+YWMCrvHzh3ezfVYRxvzcW6+trgyPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190325045744.GK2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=wg4iJsMHBzK52WzP+5_92HbwvX_vh_s4mMUuN0FJGdM5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190325194332.GO2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20190325224823.GF26298@dastard>
 <20190325230211.GR2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CAGe7X7mb=gK7zhSwmT_6mmmkcbjhZAOb=wj31BdUcHkNUPsm2Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGe7X7mb=gK7zhSwmT_6mmmkcbjhZAOb=wj31BdUcHkNUPsm2Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:25PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:

> Hey Al,
> 
> It's been a while since I've looked at that bit of code but it looks like
> Ocfs2 is syncing the inode to disk and disposing of it's memory
> representation (which would include the cluster locks held) so that other
> nodes get a chance to delete the potentially orphaned inode. In Ocfs2 we
> won't delete an inode if it exists in another nodes cache.

Wait a sec - what's the reason for forcing that write_inode_now(); why
doesn't the normal mechanism work?  I'm afraid I still don't get it -
we do wait for writeback in evict_inode(), or the local filesystems
wouldn't work.