[PATCH] cachefiles: fix dentry leak in cachefiles_open_file()
Baokun Li
libaokun at huaweicloud.com
Thu Aug 29 00:05:08 AEST 2024
Hello David,
Thanks for the review.
On 2024/8/28 21:01, David Howells wrote:
> Baokun Li <libaokun at huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, at first I was going to release the reference count of the
>> dentry uniformly in cachefiles_look_up_object() and delete all dput()
>> in cachefiles_open_file(),
> You couldn't do that anyway, since kernel_file_open() steals the caller's ref
> if successful.
Ignoring kernel_file_open(), we now put a reference count of the dentry
whether cachefiles_open_file() returns true or false.
And cachefiles_open_file() doesn't modify the dentry, so I'm thinking it's
releasing the reference count of the dentry that was got by
lookup_positive_unlocked() in cachefiles_look_up_object().
I'm not sure how kernel_file_open() steals the reference count,
am I missing something?
The code is as follows:
diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/namei.c b/fs/cachefiles/namei.c
index f53977169db4..2b3f9935dbb4 100644
--- a/fs/cachefiles/namei.c
+++ b/fs/cachefiles/namei.c
@@ -595,14 +595,12 @@ static bool cachefiles_open_file(struct
cachefiles_object *object,
* write and readdir but not lookup or open).
*/
touch_atime(&file->f_path);
- dput(dentry);
return true;
check_failed:
fscache_cookie_lookup_negative(object->cookie);
cachefiles_unmark_inode_in_use(object, file);
fput(file);
- dput(dentry);
if (ret == -ESTALE)
return cachefiles_create_file(object);
return false;
@@ -611,7 +609,6 @@ static bool cachefiles_open_file(struct
cachefiles_object *object,
fput(file);
error:
cachefiles_do_unmark_inode_in_use(object, d_inode(dentry));
- dput(dentry);
return false;
}
@@ -654,7 +651,9 @@ bool cachefiles_look_up_object(struct
cachefiles_object *object)
goto new_file;
}
- if (!cachefiles_open_file(object, dentry))
+ ret = cachefiles_open_file(object, dentry);
+ dput(dentry);
+ if (!ret)
return false;
_leave(" = t [%lu]", file_inode(object->file)->i_ino);
Regards,
Baokun
>> but this may conflict when backporting the code to stable. So just keep it
>> simple to facilitate backporting to stable.
> Prioritise upstream, please.
>
> I think Markus's suggestion of inserting a label and switching to a goto is
> better.
>
> Thanks,
> David
More information about the Linux-erofs
mailing list