... and fix the directory locking documentation and proof of correctness.
Holding ->s_vfs_rename_mutex *almost* prevents ->d_parent changes; the
case where we really don't want it is splicing the root of disconnected
tree to somewhere.
In other words, ->s_vfs_rename_mutex is sufficient to stabilize "X is an
ancestor of Y" only if X and Y are already in the same tree. Otherwise
it can go from false to true, and one can construct a deadlock on that.
Make lock_two_directories() report an error in such case and update the
callers of lock_rename()/lock_rename_child() to handle such errors.
And yes, such conditions are not impossible to create ;-/
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
We should never lock two subdirectories without having taken
->s_vfs_rename_mutex; inode pointer order or not, the "order" proposed
in 28eceeda13 "fs: Lock moved directories" is not transitive, with
the usual consequences.
The rationale for locking renamed subdirectory in all cases was
the possibility of race between rename modifying .. in a subdirectory to
reflect the new parent and another thread modifying the same subdirectory.
For a lot of filesystems that's not a problem, but for some it can lead
to trouble (e.g. the case when short directory contents is kept in the
inode, but creating a file in it might push it across the size limit
and copy its contents into separate data block(s)).
However, we need that only in case when the parent does change -
otherwise ->rename() doesn't need to do anything with .. entry in the
first place. Some instances are lazy and do a tautological update anyway,
but it's really not hard to avoid.
Amended locking rules for rename():
find the parent(s) of source and target
if source and target have the same parent
lock the common parent
else
lock ->s_vfs_rename_mutex
lock both parents, in ancestor-first order; if neither
is an ancestor of another, lock the parent of source
first.
find the source and target.
if source and target have the same parent
if operation is an overwriting rename of a subdirectory
lock the target subdirectory
else
if source is a subdirectory
lock the source
if target is a subdirectory
lock the target
lock non-directories involved, in inode pointer order if both
source and target are such.
That way we are guaranteed that parents are locked (for obvious reasons),
that any renamed non-directory is locked (nfsd relies upon that),
that any victim is locked (emptiness check needs that, among other things)
and subdirectory that changes parent is locked (needed to protect the update
of .. entries). We are also guaranteed that any operation locking more
than one directory either takes ->s_vfs_rename_mutex or locks a parent
followed by its child.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 28eceeda13 "fs: Lock moved directories"
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
When a directory is moved to a different directory, some filesystems
(udf, ext4, ocfs2, f2fs, and likely gfs2, reiserfs, and others) need to
update their pointer to the parent and this must not race with other
operations on the directory. Lock the directories when they are moved.
Although not all filesystems need this locking, we perform it in
vfs_rename() because getting the lock ordering right is really difficult
and we don't want to expose these locking details to filesystems.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Message-Id: <20230601105830.13168-5-jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
There are 3 remaining files without an extension inside the fs docs
dir.
Manually convert them to ReST.
In the case of the nfs/exporting.rst file, as the nfs docs
aren't ported yet, I opted to convert and add a :orphan: there,
with should be removed when it gets added into a nfs-specific
part of the fs documentation.
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
