Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] VFS: Add O_DENYDELETE support for VFS

[Pavel Shilovsky]

2013/5/10 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:04:16 +0400
> Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Introduce new LOCK_DELETE flock flag that is suggested to be used
>> internally only to map O_DENYDELETE open flag:
>>
>> !O_DENYDELETE -> LOCK_DELETE | LOCK_MAND.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  fs/locks.c                       | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  fs/namei.c                       |  3 +++
>>  include/linux/fs.h               |  6 +++++
>>  include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h |  1 +
>>  4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>> index dbc5557..1cc68a9 100644
>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(locks_copy_lock);
>>
>>  static inline int flock_translate_cmd(int cmd) {
>>       if (cmd & LOCK_MAND)
>> -             return cmd & (LOCK_MAND | LOCK_RW);
>> +             return cmd & (LOCK_MAND | LOCK_RW | LOCK_DELETE);
>>       switch (cmd) {
>>       case LOCK_SH:
>>               return F_RDLCK;
>> @@ -614,6 +614,8 @@ deny_flags_to_cmd(unsigned int flags)
>>               cmd |= LOCK_READ;
>>       if (!(flags & O_DENYWRITE))
>>               cmd |= LOCK_WRITE;
>> +     if (!(flags & O_DENYDELETE))
>> +             cmd |= LOCK_DELETE;
>>
>>       return cmd;
>>  }
>> @@ -836,6 +838,31 @@ out:
>>       return error;
>>  }
>>
>> +int
>> +sharelock_may_delete(struct dentry *dentry)
>> +{
>> +     struct file_lock **before;
>> +     int rc = 0;
>> +
>> +     if (!IS_SHARELOCK(dentry->d_inode))
>> +             return rc;
>> +
>> +     lock_flocks();
>> +     for_each_lock(dentry->d_inode, before) {
>> +             struct file_lock *fl = *before;
>> +             if (IS_POSIX(fl))
>> +                     break;
>> +             if (IS_LEASE(fl))
>> +                     continue;
>> +             if (fl->fl_type & LOCK_DELETE)
>> +                     continue;
>> +             rc = 1;
>> +             break;
>> +     }
>> +     unlock_flocks();
>> +     return rc;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Determine if a file is allowed to be opened with specified access and share
>>   * modes. Lock the file and return 0 if checks passed, otherwise return
>> @@ -850,10 +877,6 @@ sharelock_lock_file(struct file *filp)
>>       if (!IS_SHARELOCK(filp->f_path.dentry->d_inode))
>>               return error;
>>
>> -     /* Disable O_DENYDELETE support for now */
>> -     if (filp->f_flags & O_DENYDELETE)
>> -             return -EINVAL;
>> -
>>       error = flock_make_lock(filp, &lock, deny_flags_to_cmd(filp->f_flags));
>>       if (error)
>>               return error;
>> @@ -1717,6 +1740,12 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(flock, unsigned int, fd, unsigned int, cmd)
>>       if (!f.file)
>>               goto out;
>>
>> +     /* LOCK_DELETE is defined to be translated from O_DENYDELETE only */
>> +     if (cmd & LOCK_DELETE) {
>> +             error = -EINVAL;
>> +             goto out;
>> +     }
>> +
>>       can_sleep = !(cmd & LOCK_NB);
>>       cmd &= ~LOCK_NB;
>>       unlock = (cmd == LOCK_UN);
>> @@ -2261,10 +2290,16 @@ static void lock_get_status(struct seq_file *f, struct file_lock *fl,
>>               seq_printf(f, "UNKNOWN UNKNOWN  ");
>>       }
>>       if (fl->fl_type & LOCK_MAND) {
>> -             seq_printf(f, "%s ",
>> -                            (fl->fl_type & LOCK_READ)
>> -                            ? (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "RW   " : "READ "
>> -                            : (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "WRITE" : "NONE ");
>> +             if (fl->fl_type & LOCK_DELETE)
>> +                     seq_printf(f, "%s ",
>> +                             (fl->fl_type & LOCK_READ) ?
>> +                             (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "RWDEL" : "RDDEL" :
>> +                             (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "WRDEL" : "DEL  ");
>> +             else
>> +                     seq_printf(f, "%s ",
>> +                             (fl->fl_type & LOCK_READ) ?
>> +                             (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "RW   " : "READ " :
>> +                             (fl->fl_type & LOCK_WRITE) ? "WRITE" : "NONE ");
>>       } else {
>>               seq_printf(f, "%s ",
>>                              (lease_breaking(fl))
>> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
>> index dd236fe..a404f7d 100644
>> --- a/fs/namei.c
>> +++ b/fs/namei.c
>> @@ -2220,6 +2220,7 @@ static inline int check_sticky(struct inode *dir, struct inode *inode)
>>   *  9. We can't remove a root or mountpoint.
>>   * 10. We don't allow removal of NFS sillyrenamed files; it's handled by
>>   *     nfs_async_unlink().
>> + * 11. We can't do it if victim is locked by O_DENYDELETE sharelock.
>>   */
>>  static int may_delete(struct inode *dir,struct dentry *victim,int isdir)
>>  {
>> @@ -2250,6 +2251,8 @@ static int may_delete(struct inode *dir,struct dentry *victim,int isdir)
>>               return -ENOENT;
>>       if (victim->d_flags & DCACHE_NFSFS_RENAMED)
>>               return -EBUSY;
>> +     if (sharelock_may_delete(victim))
>> +             return -ESHAREDENIED;
>
>
> Is there a potential race here?
>
> You're holding the parent's i_mutex when setting a lock on this file,
> but you're not holding it when you test for it here. So it seems
> possible you could end up granting a O_DENYDELETE open on a file that
> is in the process of being deleted from the namespace.

may_delete function is called from vfs_unlnk, vfs_rename and vfs_rmdir
and in all those places the caller is holding parent's i_mutex. It
seems that the locking order is correct: we hold parent's i_mutex when
we set and test sharelocks.

>>       return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
>> index 24066d2..afd56b1 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
>> @@ -1006,6 +1006,7 @@ extern int lock_may_read(struct inode *, loff_t start, unsigned long count);
>>  extern int lock_may_write(struct inode *, loff_t start, unsigned long count);
>>  extern void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter);
>>  extern int sharelock_lock_file(struct file *);
>> +extern int sharelock_may_delete(struct dentry *);
>>  extern void lock_flocks(void);
>>  extern void unlock_flocks(void);
>>  #else /* !CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING */
>> @@ -1159,6 +1160,11 @@ static inline int sharelock_lock_file(struct file *filp)
>>       return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> +static inline int sharelock_may_delete(struct dentry *dentry)
>> +{
>> +     return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline void lock_flocks(void)
>>  {
>>  }
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
>> index 5ac0d49..a3e6349 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
>> @@ -167,6 +167,7 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
>>                                  blocking */
>>  #define LOCK_UN              8       /* remove lock */
>>
>> +#define LOCK_DELETE  16      /* which allows to delete a file */
>>  #define LOCK_MAND    32      /* This is a mandatory flock ... */
>>  #define LOCK_READ    64      /* which allows concurrent read operations */
>>  #define LOCK_WRITE   128     /* which allows concurrent write operations */
>
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



--
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/