fs/super.c: Fix lock/unlock imbalance in sget_fc

It seems a spin_unlock is missing before return at line 532: return old.

Addresses-Coverity-ID: 1470111 ("Missing unlock")

---
 fs/super.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

index 43400f5..ff24532 100644
@@ -529,6 +529,7 @@ struct super_block *sget_fc(struct fs_context *fc,
 				destroy_unused_super(s);
 				s = NULL;
 			}
+			spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
 			return old;
 		}
 	}

2.7.4

... and that had been tested how, exactly? Because I would really like a reproducer or, short of that, a proof that one exists. Hell, I would settle for something that hits the codepath in question with that patch applied.

"It seems" is not enough - it's a good starting point for investigating, but no more than that.

[tl;dr - "it seems" is, indeed, no good. *IF* there's more to it (e.g. a reproducer), we have some other crap going on and need to investigate that, but even in that case, the patch is wrong]

As for how to investigate that kind of thing... Look:

The code in question is

                        if (fc->user_ns != old->s_user_ns) {
                                spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
                                if (s) {
                                        up_write(&s->s_umount);
                                        destroy_unused_super(s);
                                }
                                return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
                        }
                        if (!grab_super(old))
                                goto retry;
                        if (s) {
                                up_write(&s->s_umount);
                                destroy_unused_super(s);
                                s = NULL;
                        }
                        return old;

Your hypothesis is that we can get to that return old; with sb_lock held. That would almost certainly be a bad thing, since elsewhere in the same function we have

        spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
        get_filesystem(s->s_type);
        register_shrinker(&s->s_shrink);
        return s;

which appears to return an object with sb_lock dropped, with no obvious way for a caller to tell one from another. Even if such a way existed (it does, actually), that kind of calling conventions would be highly bug-prone.

The next question is, when would we get to that return old; with sb_lock held? We do, apparently, hold it before the if (fc->...) above (again, strictly speaking not proven yet, but that's the most likely assumption). So if grab_super(old) returns true and we are holding sb_lock, either we do have a problem, or something subtle is going on.

The obvious next target of examination is grab_super(). Which comes with
/**
* grab_super - acquire an active reference
* @s: reference we are trying to make active
*

 *      Tries to acquire an active reference.  grab_super() is used when we
 *      had just found a superblock in super_blocks or fs_type->fs_supers
 *      and want to turn it into a full-blown active reference.  grab_super()
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
 *      is called with sb_lock held and drops it.  Returns 1 in case of
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 *      success, 0 if we had failed (superblock contents was already dead or
 *      dying when grab_super() had been called).  Note that this is only
 *      called for superblocks not in rundown mode (== ones still on ->fs_supers
 *      of their type), so increment of ->s_count is OK here.

*/
and looking for references to sb_lock yields the underscored sentence. Now, if that is true (which is not guaranteed - comments can become stale), we do not need to drop sb_lock after the call of grab_super() - it's already been dropped by grab_super() itself.

And looking at the actual code we have
static int grab_super(struct super_block *s) __releases(sb_lock)

{
        s->s_count++;
        spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^---------- dropped, indeed
        down_write(&s->s_umount);
        if ((s->s_flags & SB_BORN) && atomic_inc_not_zero(&s->s_active)) {
                put_super(s);
                return 1;
        }
        up_write(&s->s_umount);
        put_super(s);
        return 0;
}
... and not regained, unless put_super() does something fishy.
static void put_super(struct super_block *sb)
{
        spin_lock(&sb_lock);
        __put_super(sb);
        spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
}

OK, put_super() definitely returns with sb_lock not held, and therefore so does grab_super(). In other words, the comment does match the reality and trying to drop sb_lock right after the call of grab_super() would be 100% wrong.

That disproves your hypothesis. For the sake of completeness, let's finish the analysis of sget_fc() wrt sb_lock.
struct super_block *sget_fc(struct fs_context *fc,
int (*test)(struct super_block *, struct fs_context *), int (*set)(struct super_block *, struct fs_context *))

{
        if (!(fc->sb_flags & SB_KERNMOUNT) &&
            fc->purpose != FS_CONTEXT_FOR_SUBMOUNT) {
                /* Don't allow mounting unless the caller has CAP_SYS_ADMIN
                 * over the namespace.
                 */
                if (!(fc->fs_type->fs_flags & FS_USERNS_MOUNT) &&
                    !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
                        return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
                else if (!ns_capable(fc->user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
                        return ERR_PTR(-EPERM);
        }
retry:
        spin_lock(&sb_lock);

OK, we definitely do not want to call that with sb_lock held - doing so would either return ERR_PTR(-EPERM) or deadlock. So the calling conventions include "caller is not holding sb_lock". If so, everything up to retry: should be executed without sb_lock held, and subsequent code is with sb_lock held.

        if (test) {
                hlist_for_each_entry(old, &fc->fs_type->fs_supers, s_instances) {
                        if (!test(old, fc))
                                continue;
'test' callback should be callable with sb_lock held.  Note that
at least in case when it returns false it must not have dropped
sb_lock - the list we are walking is protected by sb_lock.
                        if (fc->user_ns != old->s_user_ns) {
                                spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
... in which case we also want sb_lock not dropped by test() since we
drop it ourselves.
                                if (s) {
                                        up_write(&s->s_umount);
                                        destroy_unused_super(s);
destroy_unused_super() is called without sb_lock here and examination
shows that it doesn't touch sb_lock itself.
                                }
                                return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
                        }
... and in this case we also want sb_lock not dropped by test() either,
since grab_super() will drop it.
                        if (!grab_super(old))
                                goto retry;
we either go back to 'retry:' with sb_lock not held (same as in the
case of reaching retry: without goto) or coninue to
                        if (s) {
                                up_write(&s->s_umount);
                                destroy_unused_super(s);
same as above, called without sb_lock, doesn't touch it.
                                s = NULL;
                        }
                        return old;
... and we return without sb_lock held.
                }
        }

Here (after the if (test) body) we do hold sb_lock

        if (!s) {
                spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
drop and call alloc_super(), which doesn't touch sb_lock
                s = alloc_super(fc);
                if (!s)
                        return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
                goto retry;

... and either return without sb_lock or go back to retry:, with the same conditions as on other paths leading there. Incidentally, since alloc_super() very clearly blocks (GFP_USER kzalloc the very first thing in there), the calling conventions for sget_fc() include not just "must not be holding sb_lock" but "must not be holding any spinlock".

        }
        s->s_fs_info = fc->s_fs_info;
        err = set(s, fc);
OK, so 'set()' is also called under sb_lock.
        if (err) {
                s->s_fs_info = NULL;
                spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
... and at least in case of error must not drop it, since we'd do that
ourselves.
                up_write(&s->s_umount);
                destroy_unused_super(s);
                return ERR_PTR(err);
same as in earlier cases
        }
        fc->s_fs_info = NULL;
        s->s_type = fc->fs_type;
        strlcpy(s->s_id, s->s_type->name, sizeof(s->s_id));
        list_add_tail(&s->s_list, &super_blocks);
        hlist_add_head(&s->s_instances, &s->s_type->fs_supers);
        spin_unlock(&sb_lock);

OK, so 'set()' must not drop sb_lock in any cases. And from that point on sb_lock is not held (neither get_filesystem() nor register_shrinker() touch it)

        get_filesystem(s->s_type);
        register_shrinker(&s->s_shrink);
        return s;
}

So we arrive to the following:

* sget_fc() must not be called with any spinlocks (sb_lock included) held.
* in all cases it returns with sb_lock not held.
* test() and set() callbacks are always called under sb_lock and should not drop it.

Looking at the shape of that code strengthens the last one to "even drop-and-retake is not allowed". With that kind of loop over hlist, dropping and retaking sb_lock in test() might blow up. And as for set() callback, we clearly don't want to create a new instance when an existing one would satisfy the test() predicate. And dropping/retaking sb_lock would've allowed another caller to come and insert a new instance while our set() has not been holding sb_lock, ending up with just that once we return and get to hlist_add_head() there.

In other words,
* called without any spinlocks held
* returns with no spinlocks held
* callbacks are always called under sb_lock and must not touch it.

Verifying that callers (and all possible callbacks) satisfy those rules is left as an exercise for reader...

Hi Al,

Certainly, I never checked grab_super. Lesson learned.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this master class. I really appreciate it. :)

--
Gustavo