Skip to contentSkip to conversation

better locking in fs/proc/generic.c (bug 1552)

PATCH In review Nathan Lynch 2 participants 2 messages Nov 21, 2003 Proc filesystem

lore
Share & tools
lore

Nathan Lynch

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 better locking in fs/proc/generic.c (bug 1552)

Hi-

I have been experiencing various oopses in the procfs code when rapidly adding and removing /proc entries. It seems that the main problem is lack of proper locking around code that traverses or modifies the proc_dir_entry tree. There is also the matter of proc_kill_inodes() clearing the file pointer's f_op, which caused oopses in vfs_read() in my testing.

I have followed the example of proc_lookup() and used lock_kernel/unlock_kernel around critical sections. I'm not much of a filesystem person, so I would appreciate a review of the patch from folks more knowledgeable. I have been testing the code on a couple of dual processor machines (i386 and ppc64) without incident.

Please see http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1552 for oops traces and a testcase. Andrew posted a one-liner patch there which was included in mm4 which is also needed.

Patch is against 2.6.0-test9-mm4.

Thanks,
Nathan

fs/proc/generic.c +9 -2
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.0-test9-mm4.orig/fs/proc/generic.c linux-2.6.0-test9-mm4.new/fs/proc/generic.c
@@ -260,6 +260,7 @@ static int xlate_proc_name(const char *n
 	int			len;
 
 	de = &proc_root;
+	lock_kernel();
 	while (1) {
 		next = strchr(cp, '/');
 		if (!next)

@@ -270,10 +271,13 @@ static int xlate_proc_name(const char *n
 			if (proc_match(len, cp, de))
 				break;
 		}
-		if (!de)
+		if (!de) {
+			unlock_kernel();
 			return -ENOENT;
+		}
 		cp += len + 1;
 	}
+	unlock_kernel();
 	*residual = cp;
 	*ret = de;
 	return 0;

@@ -462,6 +466,7 @@ static int proc_register(struct proc_dir
 	if (i < 0)
 		return -EAGAIN;
 	dp->low_ino = i;
+	lock_kernel(); /* needed to protect against concurrent registration */
 	dp->next = dir->subdir;
 	dp->parent = dir;
 	dir->subdir = dp;

@@ -480,6 +485,7 @@ static int proc_register(struct proc_dir
 		if (dp->proc_iops == NULL)
 			dp->proc_iops = &proc_file_inode_operations;
 	}
+	unlock_kernel();
 	return 0;
 }
 

@@ -507,7 +513,6 @@ static void proc_kill_inodes(struct proc
 		if (PDE(inode) != de)
 			continue;
 		fops = filp->f_op;
-		filp->f_op = NULL;
 		fops_put(fops);
 	}
 	file_list_unlock();

@@ -643,6 +648,7 @@ void remove_proc_entry(const char *name,
 	if (!parent && xlate_proc_name(name, &parent, &fn) != 0)
 		goto out;
 	len = strlen(fn);
+	lock_kernel();
 	for (p = &parent->subdir; *p; p=&(*p)->next ) {
 		if (!proc_match(len, fn, *p))
 			continue;

@@ -664,6 +670,7 @@ void remove_proc_entry(const char *name,
 		}
 		break;
 	}
+	unlock_kernel();
 out:
 	return;
 }
#1 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Nathan Lynch

Hi-

I have been experiencing various oopses in the procfs code when rapidly adding and removing /proc entries.

I doubt if this particularly surprises anyone.

Quoted 11 lines

It seems that the main problem is
lack of proper locking around code that traverses or modifies the proc_dir_entry tree. There is also the matter of proc_kill_inodes() clearing the file pointer's f_op, which caused oopses in vfs_read() in my testing.

I have followed the example of proc_lookup() and used lock_kernel/unlock_kernel around critical sections. I'm not much of a filesystem person, so I would appreciate a review of the patch from folks more knowledgeable. I have been testing the code on a couple of dual processor machines (i386 and ppc64) without incident.

The correct lock to use is i_sem on the directory which is subject to lookup.

Quoted 3 lines

Please see http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1552 for oops traces and a testcase. Andrew posted a one-liner patch there which was included in mm4 which is also needed.

gargh, I was waiting to hear back on that patch, and there it is. Durned bugzilla. Thanks.