Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 15 Jan 2022 06:38:39 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Cc:     Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: check dentry is still valid in get_link()
Message-ID: <YeJr7/E+9stwEb3t@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
References: <164180589176.86426.501271559065590169.stgit@mickey.themaw.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <164180589176.86426.501271559065590169.stgit@mickey.themaw.net>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 05:11:31PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> When following a trailing symlink in rcu-walk mode it's possible for
> the dentry to become invalid between the last dentry seq lock check
> and getting the link (eg. an unlink) leading to a backtrace similar
> to this:
> 
> crash> bt
> PID: 10964  TASK: ffff951c8aa92f80  CPU: 3   COMMAND: "TaniumCX"
> …
>  #7 [ffffae44d0a6fbe0] page_fault at ffffffff8d6010fe
>     [exception RIP: unknown or invalid address]
>     RIP: 0000000000000000  RSP: ffffae44d0a6fc90  RFLAGS: 00010246
>     RAX: ffffffff8da3cc80  RBX: ffffae44d0a6fd30  RCX: 0000000000000000
>     RDX: ffffae44d0a6fd98  RSI: ffff951aa9af3008  RDI: 0000000000000000
>     RBP: 0000000000000000   R8: ffffae44d0a6fb94   R9: 0000000000000000
>     R10: ffff951c95d8c318  R11: 0000000000080000  R12: ffffae44d0a6fd98
>     R13: ffff951aa9af3008  R14: ffff951c8c9eb840  R15: 0000000000000000
>     ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff  CS: 0010  SS: 0018
>  #8 [ffffae44d0a6fc90] trailing_symlink at ffffffff8cf24e61
>  #9 [ffffae44d0a6fcc8] path_lookupat at ffffffff8cf261d1
> #10 [ffffae44d0a6fd28] filename_lookup at ffffffff8cf2a700
> #11 [ffffae44d0a6fe40] vfs_statx at ffffffff8cf1dbc4
> #12 [ffffae44d0a6fe98] __do_sys_newstat at ffffffff8cf1e1f9
> #13 [ffffae44d0a6ff38] do_syscall_64 at ffffffff8cc0420b
> 
> Most of the time this is not a problem because the inode is unchanged
> while the rcu read lock is held.
> 
> But xfs can re-use inodes which can result in the inode ->get_link()
> method becoming invalid (or NULL).

Without an RCU delay?  Then we have much worse problems...

Details, please.