NetBSD-Bugs archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: kern/46990: tmpfs_gro_genealogy() panic - rename/rmdir race condition not handled

The following reply was made to PR kern/46990; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Stukenbrock <>
To: Taylor R Campbell <>
Subject: Re: kern/46990: tmpfs_gro_genealogy() panic - rename/rmdir race 
condition not handled
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:40:49 +0200

 I've still not added this code fragment bacause I've just shut down my 
 test system for weekend.
 But this fix is most like the same as I did - except that your's will 
 not panic if KASSERT is enabled as my version did ...
 I've added the printf if I detect dnode == NULL at the begin of the loop 
 and I got it, as I mentioned before.
 I think this patch will solve the problem, but I will retest on monday.
 till then
 W. Stukenbrock
 Taylor R Campbell wrote:
 >    Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:10:26 +0200
 >    From: Wolfgang Stukenbrock 
 > <>
 >    If we can exclude the first loop pass, than the "problem" must happen 
 >    while walking up the parent chain.
 >    We will vput(vp) after getting tn_vlock on the parent - so we have no 
 >    lock on any vnode anymore.
 >    The normal way is to get tn_vlock and than seaches for the vnode by 
 >    calling tmpfs_vnode_get(). There we have two different ways to handle 
 >    the locks:
 >    ...
 > It looks to me as though this is the source of the problem.  I didn't
 > look closely enough at tmpfs_vnode_get before, but now that I look at
 > it, it seems that the only invariant it preserves is the existence of
 > the tmpfs node -- that is, tmpfs_reclaim will not free the tmpfs node
 > while we are getting a vnode for it.  All other invariants may be lost
 > because tmpfs_vnode_get drops all locks except the tmpfs reclaiming
 > bit.
 > In that case, it is necessary to check tmpfs_rmdired_p after
 > tmpfs_vnode_get, so try adding the following fragment at the very end
 > of the loop, after `error = tmpfs_vnode_get(mp, dnode, &vp); if
 > (error) return error;':
 >              /*
 >               * tmpfs_vnode_get only guarantees that dnode will not
 >               * be freed while we get a vnode for it.  It does not
 >               * preserve any other invariants, so we must check
 >               * whether the parent has been removed in the meantime.
 >               */
 >              if (tmpfs_rmdired_p(vp)) {
 >                      printf("tmpfs_vnode_get lost race with rmdir\n");
 >                      vput(vp);
 >                      return ENOENT;
 >              }
 > Can you try this and see how dirconc goes?  In particular, please let
 > me know if you hit the printf.
 >    What will happen if I've a reference to a directory (e.g. current-dir) 
 >    and someone delete it and the parent of it too?
 > Then you'll have a reference to the vnode for a deleted directory.
 > But if you have the vnode locked, then nothing can delete it.
 >    I've seen no code that will destroy the link between the vnode and the 
 >    node structure till now, but I assume it is present somewhere.
 > This happens in tmpfs_reclaim, when the vnode ceases to be referenced.
 >    As a second action all WHITEOUT children of the just removed directory 
 >    are simply deleted during directory delete operation. (calls to 
 >    tmpfs_dir_detach and tmpfs_free_dirent without any checks for vnode 
 >    references.)
 >    If there are still vnodes associated to the nodes in the dirents, is 
 >    this code save?
 > WHITEOUT stuff is not relevant unless you are using onionfs, so don't
 > worry about that logic.
 >    Just as information:
 >    The last problem I've fixed before was the sync with the cache after 
 >    rename occured.
 >    In Head the call to genfs_rename_cache_purge() was commented out in 
 >    tmpfs_gro_rename.
 >    5.1 seems to need it, because I've ended up with having the object in 
 >    the correct tmpfs-structure, but when accessing it in the cache it is 
 >    not found.
 >    Symtom: "ls <dir>" will show the name but "ls -l <dir>" say "file not 
 >    found".
 > This is not surprising.  It's probably safe to uncomment all of the
 > commented cache purges that I left scattered around -- the only reason
 > I didn't do that was to preserve the existing behaviour and to remind
 > me that the namecache needs careful analysis which I haven't done.
 > But as a stop-gap before that analysis is done, overzealously purging
 > the cache may improve correctness and will probably at worst only hurt
 > performance.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index