On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:35:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:23:30 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > [PATCH v4] Fix rmmod/read/write races in /proc entries
> 
> This:
> 
> static ssize_t
> proc_file_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buffer,
>               size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> {
>       struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
>       struct proc_dir_entry * dp;
>       ssize_t rv = -EIO;
>       
>       dp = PDE(inode);
> 
>       if (!dp->write_proc)
>               goto out;
> 
>       spin_lock(&dp->pde_unload_lock);
>       if (!dp->proc_fops)
>               /*
>                * remove_proc_entry() marked PDE as "going away".
>                * No new writers allowed.
>                */
>               goto out_unlock;
> 
> versus
> 
>               spin_lock(&de->pde_unload_lock);
>               /*
>                * Stop accepting new readers/writers. If you're dynamically
>                * allocating ->proc_fops, save a pointer somewhere.
>                */
>               de->proc_fops = NULL;
>               /* Wait until all existing readers/writers are done. */
>               if (de->pde_users > 0) {
>                       struct completion c;
>
>                       init_completion(&c);
>                       if (!de->pde_unload_completion)
>                               de->pde_unload_completion = &c;
>
>                       spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock);
>                       spin_unlock(&proc_subdir_lock);
>
>                       wait_for_completion(de->pde_unload_completion);
>
>                       spin_lock(&proc_subdir_lock);
>                       goto continue_removing;
>               }
>               spin_unlock(&de->pde_unload_lock);
>   <here>
>       ...
>       <free de>
>
> What prevents proc_file_write() from looking up and playing with this de in
> <here>?

If I understood your two-column diagram correctly, scenario below can't
happen because of PDE's own refcount (->count) and existence of
->deleted (0/1)

remove_proc_entry() sees positive ->count and doesn't immediately free
PDE. remove_proc_entry() will at most a) lock b) access to check
->proc_fops which is NULL now, and c) unlock which is fine because
memory is in place.

->count is bumped in proc_get_inode after checking PDEs lists, but our
PDE was already removed from it.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to