Donate to e Foundation | Murena handsets with /e/OS | Own a part of Murena! Learn more

Skip to content
Commit 16a58e9a authored by Al Viro's avatar Al Viro Committed by Greg Kroah-Hartman
Browse files

fix proc_sys_compare() handling of in-lookup dentries



[ Upstream commit b969f9614885c20f903e1d1f9445611daf161d6d ]

There's one case where ->d_compare() can be called for an in-lookup
dentry; usually that's nothing special from ->d_compare() point of
view, but... proc_sys_compare() is weird.

The thing is, /proc/sys subdirectories can look differently for
different processes.  Up to and including having the same name
resolve to different dentries - all of them hashed.

The way it's done is ->d_compare() refusing to admit a match unless
this dentry is supposed to be visible to this caller.  The information
needed to discriminate between them is stored in inode; it is set
during proc_sys_lookup() and until it's done d_splice_alias() we really
can't tell who should that dentry be visible for.

Normally there's no negative dentries in /proc/sys; we can run into
a dying dentry in RCU dcache lookup, but those can be safely rejected.

However, ->d_compare() is also called for in-lookup dentries, before
they get positive - or hashed, for that matter.  In case of match
we will wait until dentry leaves in-lookup state and repeat ->d_compare()
afterwards.  In other words, the right behaviour is to treat the
name match as sufficient for in-lookup dentries; if dentry is not
for us, we'll see that when we recheck once proc_sys_lookup() is
done with it.

While we are at it, fix the misspelled READ_ONCE and WRITE_ONCE there.

Fixes: d9171b93 ("parallel lookups machinery, part 4 (and last)")
Reported-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neilb@brown.name>
Reviewed-by: default avatarChristian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarNeilBrown <neil@brown.name>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
parent 42e9cf27
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Please register or to comment