lock_parent() needs to recheck if dentry got __dentry_kill'ed under it

commit 3b821409632ab778d46e807516b457dfa72736ed upstream.

In case when dentry passed to lock_parent() is protected from freeing only
by the fact that it's on a shrink list and trylock of parent fails, we
could get hit by __dentry_kill() (and subsequent dentry_kill(parent))
between unlocking dentry and locking presumed parent.  We need to recheck
that dentry is alive once we lock both it and parent *and* postpone
rcu_read_unlock() until after that point.  Otherwise we could return
a pointer to struct dentry that already is rcu-scheduled for freeing, with
->d_lock held on it; caller's subsequent attempt to unlock it can end
up with memory corruption.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.12+, counting backports
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index b8d999a5768bfeeb481ef31193d5d114bf2d089a..a1417787e269ea51751822f649779944014ca863 100644 (file)
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -644,11 +644,16 @@ again:
                spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
                goto again;
        }
-       rcu_read_unlock();
-       if (parent != dentry)
+       if (parent != dentry) {
                spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
-       else
+               if (unlikely(dentry->d_lockref.count < 0)) {
+                       spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
+                       parent = NULL;
+               }
+       } else {
                parent = NULL;
+       }
+       rcu_read_unlock();
        return parent;
 }