Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 10:44:09 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@cornelisnetworks.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
        Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
        Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/19] fs: release anon dev_t in deactivate_locked_super
Message-ID: <20231010-zulagen-bisschen-9657746c1fc0@brauner>
References: <20230913111013.77623-1-hch@lst.de>
 <20230913111013.77623-4-hch@lst.de>
 <20230913232712.GC800259@ZenIV>
 <20230926093834.GB13806@lst.de>
 <20230926212515.GN800259@ZenIV>
 <20231002064646.GA1799@lst.de>
 <20231009215754.GL800259@ZenIV>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231009215754.GL800259@ZenIV>
Precedence: bulk

> list removal should happen after generic_shutdown_super().  Sure, you
> want the superblock to serve as bdev holder, which leads to fun
> with -EBUSY if mount comes while umount still hadn't closed the
> device.  I suspect that it would make a lot more sense to
> introduce an intermediate state - "held, but will be released
> in a short while".  You already have something similar, but
> only for the entire disk ->bd_claiming stuff.
> 
> Add a new primitive (will_release_bdev()), so that attempts to
> claim the sucker will wait until it gets released instead of
> failing with -EBUSY.  And do *that* before generic_shutdown_super()
> when unmounting something that is block-based.  Allows to bring
> the list removal back where it used to be, no UAF at all...

This is essentially equivalent to what is done right now. Only that this
would then happen in the block layer. I'm not sure it would buy us that
much. In all likelyhood we just get a range of other issues to fix.