From: Marc Zyngier maz@kernel.org
commit a9ed4a6560b8562b7e2e2bed9527e88001f7b682 upstream.
When adding a new fd to an epoll, and that this new fd is an epoll fd itself, we recursively scan the fds attached to it to detect cycles, and add non-epool files to a "check list" that gets subsequently parsed.
However, this check list isn't completely safe when deletions can happen concurrently. To sidestep the issue, make sure that a struct file placed on the check list sees its f_count increased, ensuring that a concurrent deletion won't result in the file disapearing from under our feet.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier maz@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier maz@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- fs/eventpoll.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c index 113730881f113..d7fd1b0e37abb 100644 --- a/fs/eventpoll.c +++ b/fs/eventpoll.c @@ -1892,9 +1892,11 @@ static int ep_loop_check_proc(void *priv, void *cookie, int call_nests) * not already there, and calling reverse_path_check() * during ep_insert(). */ - if (list_empty(&epi->ffd.file->f_tfile_llink)) + if (list_empty(&epi->ffd.file->f_tfile_llink)) { + get_file(epi->ffd.file); list_add(&epi->ffd.file->f_tfile_llink, &tfile_check_list); + } } } mutex_unlock(&ep->mtx); @@ -1938,6 +1940,7 @@ static void clear_tfile_check_list(void) file = list_first_entry(&tfile_check_list, struct file, f_tfile_llink); list_del_init(&file->f_tfile_llink); + fput(file); } INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tfile_check_list); } @@ -2097,9 +2100,11 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(epoll_ctl, int, epfd, int, op, int, fd, clear_tfile_check_list(); goto error_tgt_fput; } - } else + } else { + get_file(tf.file); list_add(&tf.file->f_tfile_llink, &tfile_check_list); + } mutex_lock_nested(&ep->mtx, 0); if (is_file_epoll(tf.file)) { tep = tf.file->private_data;