Re: [PATCH] 9p: add missing locking around taking dentry fid list

[Dominique Martinet]

Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Thu, May 23, 2024 at 10:34:14AM +0200:
> > The comment still works -- if detry->d_fsdata is NULL then
> > hlist_for_each_entry will stop short and not iterate over anything (it
> > won't bug out), so that part is fine in my opinion.
> 
> I meant the opposite: dentry->d_fsdata not being NULL.

I also meant that in the d_fsdata not being NULL branch, if d_fsdata
turns out to be NULL when it is read under lock later.

> In this case v9fs_fid_find() takes a local copy of the list head
> pointer as `h` without taking a lock before.

It doesn't, it takes &dentry->d_fsdata so the address of d_fsdata before
the lock, but that address cannot change here (another thread cannot
change the address of the dentry) ...(continuing below)

> Then v9fs_fid_find() takes the lock to run hlist_for_each_entry(), but at this
> point `h` could already point at garbage.

.. so *h (in practice, head->first in hlist_for_each_entry()) will
properly contain the first node of the list under lock: either NULL if
we just cleared it (at which point the loop won't iterate anything), or
a new list if other items have been added meanwhile.


I really think it's safe, but I do agree that it's hard to read, happy
to move the `h = &dentry->d_fsdata` inside the lock if you prefer -- it
compiles to the same code for me (x86_64/gcc 13.2.0)
-- 
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus