From: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@huawei.com>
To: <trondmy@kernel.org>, <anna@kernel.org>, <jlayton@kernel.org>,
<bcodding@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<houtao1@huawei.com>, <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
<yangerkun@huawei.com>, <zhangjian496@h-partners.com>,
<lilingfeng@huaweicloud.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nfs: fix the race of lock/unlock and open
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2026 19:22:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9c108a8e-4d74-4a79-978a-41790592a49d@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5e9ea3a8-d3ab-4fdf-9365-502866c9224d@huawei.com>
Hi,
I tried separating the local VFS lock update from the RPC completion path
(performing an unlock if the VFS lock update fails), and then using
nfsi->rwsem to protect the file lock to prevent UAF.
Split local VFS lock update from RPC completion path:
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index 491fbe65e644..41d66e34851b 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -6887,7 +6887,7 @@ static struct rpc_task *nfs4_do_unlck(struct
file_lock *fl,
return rpc_run_task(&task_setup_data);
}
-static int nfs4_proc_unlck(struct nfs4_state *state, struct file_lock
*request)
+static int nfs4_proc_unlck(struct nfs4_state *state, struct file_lock
*request, int remote_only)
{
struct inode *inode = state->inode;
struct nfs4_state_owner *sp = state->owner;
@@ -6906,7 +6906,7 @@ static int nfs4_proc_unlck(struct nfs4_state
*state, struct file_lock *request)
mutex_lock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
/* Exclude nfs4_reclaim_open_stateid() - note nesting! */
down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
- if (locks_lock_inode_wait(inode, request) == -ENOENT) {
+ if (!remote_only && locks_lock_inode_wait(inode, request) ==
-ENOENT) {
up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
mutex_unlock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
goto out;
@@ -7044,11 +7044,6 @@ static void nfs4_lock_done(struct rpc_task *task,
void *calldata)
case 0:
renew_lease(NFS_SERVER(d_inode(data->ctx->dentry)),
data->timestamp);
- if (data->arg.new_lock && !data->cancelled) {
- data->fl.fl_flags &= ~(FL_SLEEP | FL_ACCESS);
- if (locks_lock_inode_wait(lsp->ls_state->inode,
&data->fl) < 0)
- goto out_restart;
- }
if (data->arg.new_lock_owner != 0) {
nfs_confirm_seqid(&lsp->ls_seqid, 0);
nfs4_stateid_copy(&lsp->ls_stateid,
&data->res.stateid);
@@ -7254,7 +7249,7 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state
*state, int cmd, struct file_lock
struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(state->inode);
struct nfs4_state_owner *sp = state->owner;
unsigned char fl_flags = request->fl_flags;
- int status;
+ int status, ret;
request->fl_flags |= FL_ACCESS;
status = locks_lock_inode_wait(state->inode, request);
@@ -7274,6 +7269,16 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state
*state, int cmd, struct file_lock
up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
mutex_unlock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
status = _nfs4_do_setlk(state, cmd, request, NFS_LOCK_NEW);
+ if (status != 0)
+ goto out;
+
+ request->fl_flags = fl_flags & ~(FL_SLEEP | FL_ACCESS);
+ status = locks_lock_inode_wait(state->inode, request);
+ if (status) {
+ ret = nfs4_proc_unlck(state, request, 1);
+ status = ret ? ret : status;
+ dprintk("%s: cancelling lock!\n", __func__);
+ }
out:
request->fl_flags = fl_flags;
return status;
@@ -7428,7 +7433,7 @@ nfs4_proc_lock(struct file *filp, int cmd, struct
file_lock *request)
if (request->fl_type == F_UNLCK) {
if (state != NULL)
- return nfs4_proc_unlck(state, request);
+ return nfs4_proc_unlck(state, request, 0);
return 0;
}
Protect file lock by nfsi->rwsem:
diff --git a/fs/nfs/delegation.c b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
index c2eb01e5eeab..251a0b196d05 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/delegation.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
@@ -145,15 +145,17 @@ int nfs4_check_delegation(struct inode *inode,
fmode_t flags)
static int nfs_delegation_claim_locks(struct nfs4_state *state, const
nfs4_stateid *stateid)
{
struct inode *inode = state->inode;
+ struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
struct file_lock *fl;
struct file_lock_context *flctx = inode->i_flctx;
struct list_head *list;
int status = 0;
if (flctx == NULL)
- goto out;
+ return status;
list = &flctx->flc_posix;
+ down_write(&nfsi->rwsem);
spin_lock(&flctx->flc_lock);
restart:
list_for_each_entry(fl, list, fl_list) {
@@ -171,6 +173,7 @@ static int nfs_delegation_claim_locks(struct
nfs4_state *state, const nfs4_state
}
spin_unlock(&flctx->flc_lock);
out:
+ up_write(&nfsi->rwsem);
return status;
}
diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
index 41d66e34851b..e763423c81ec 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
@@ -6770,18 +6770,23 @@ static void nfs4_locku_done(struct rpc_task
*task, void *data)
.stateid = &calldata->arg.stateid,
};
int status;
+ struct nfs_inode *nfsi;
if (!nfs4_sequence_done(task, &calldata->res.seq_res))
return;
switch (task->tk_status) {
case 0:
+ nfsi = NFS_I(calldata->lsp->ls_state->inode);
renew_lease(calldata->server, calldata->timestamp);
+ down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
status =
locks_lock_inode_wait(calldata->lsp->ls_state->inode,
&calldata->fl);
if (status && (status != -ENOENT)) {
+ up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
rpc_restart_call_prepare(task);
break;
}
+ up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
if (nfs4_update_lock_stateid(calldata->lsp,
&calldata->res.stateid))
break;
@@ -7273,7 +7278,9 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state
*state, int cmd, struct file_lock
goto out;
request->fl_flags = fl_flags & ~(FL_SLEEP | FL_ACCESS);
+ down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
status = locks_lock_inode_wait(state->inode, request);
+ up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
if (status) {
ret = nfs4_proc_unlck(state, request, 1);
status = ret ? ret : status;
However, this partially reverts the logic from commit c69899a17ca4
('NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range lock must be atomic with the stateid
update'), making the VFS lock update non-atomic with the stateid update.
I'm not sure if this might cause any issues.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this solution, or perhaps alternative
approaches?
Thanks,
Lingfeng.
在 2026/1/7 19:07, Li Lingfeng 写道:
> Hi,
>
> Recently, we found that this solution can introduce a deadlock issue:
> T1
> nfs_flock
> do_unlk
> nfs4_proc_lock
> nfs4_proc_unlck
> down_read // holding &nfsi->rwsem
> nfs4_do_unlck
> rpc_wait_for_completion_task // waiting for the rpc_task to complete
>
> // .rpc_call_done
> nfs4_locku_done
> nfs4_async_handle_exception
> nfs4_do_handle_exception
> exception->recovering = 1
> rpc_sleep_on // the rpc_task sleeps on &clp->cl_rpcwaitq, waiting to
> be woken up by T2
>
> T2
> nfs4_state_manager
> nfs4_do_reclaim
> nfs4_reclaim_open_state
> __nfs4_reclaim_open_state
> nfs4_reclaim_locks
> down_write // tries to acquire &nfsi->rwsem and gets stuck
>
> It seems that using &nfsi->rwsem to protect file locks is not a good
> idea.
> Does anyone have a viable approach to address this UAF issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Lingfeng.
>
> 在 2025/9/1 22:25, Li Lingfeng 写道:
>> Friendly ping..
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> 在 2025/7/15 11:05, Li Lingfeng 写道:
>>> LOCK may extend an existing lock and release another one and UNLOCK may
>>> also release an existing lock.
>>> When opening a file, there may be access to file locks that have been
>>> concurrently released by lock/unlock operations, potentially triggering
>>> UAF.
>>> While certain concurrent scenarios involving lock/unlock and open
>>> operations have been safeguarded with locks – for example,
>>> nfs4_proc_unlckz() acquires the so_delegreturn_mutex prior to invoking
>>> locks_lock_inode_wait() – there remain cases where such protection
>>> is not
>>> yet implemented.
>>>
>>> The issue can be reproduced through the following steps:
>>> T1: open in read-only mode with three consecutive lock operations
>>> applied
>>> lock1(0~100) --> add lock1 to file
>>> lock2(120~200) --> add lock2 to file
>>> lock3(50~150) --> extend lock1 to cover range 0~200 and release
>>> lock2
>>> T2: restart nfs-server and run state manager
>>> T3: open in write-only mode
>>> T1 T2 T3
>>> start recover
>>> lock1
>>> lock2
>>> nfs4_open_reclaim
>>> clear_bit // NFS_DELEGATED_STATE
>>> lock3
>>> _nfs4_proc_setlk
>>> lock so_delegreturn_mutex
>>> unlock so_delegreturn_mutex
>>> _nfs4_do_setlk
>>> recover done
>>> lock
>>> so_delegreturn_mutex
>>> nfs_delegation_claim_locks
>>> get lock2
>>> rpc_run_task
>>> ...
>>> nfs4_lock_done
>>> locks_lock_inode_wait
>>> ...
>>> locks_dispose_list
>>> free lock2
>>> use lock2
>>> // UAF
>>> unlock
>>> so_delegreturn_mutex
>>>
>>> Protect file lock by nfsi->rwsem to fix this issue.
>>>
>>> Fixes: c69899a17ca4 ("NFSv4: Update of VFS byte range lock must be
>>> atomic with the stateid update")
>>> Reported-by: zhangjian (CG) <zhangjian496@huawei.com>
>>> Suggested-by: yangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> Use nfsi->rwsem instead of sp->so_delegreturn_mutex to prevent
>>> concurrency.
>>>
>>> fs/nfs/delegation.c | 5 ++++-
>>> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 8 +++++++-
>>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/delegation.c b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> index 10ef46e29b25..4467b4f61905 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/delegation.c
>>> @@ -149,15 +149,17 @@ int nfs4_check_delegation(struct inode *inode,
>>> fmode_t type)
>>> static int nfs_delegation_claim_locks(struct nfs4_state *state,
>>> const nfs4_stateid *stateid)
>>> {
>>> struct inode *inode = state->inode;
>>> + struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
>>> struct file_lock *fl;
>>> struct file_lock_context *flctx = locks_inode_context(inode);
>>> struct list_head *list;
>>> int status = 0;
>>> if (flctx == NULL)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + return status;
>>> list = &flctx->flc_posix;
>>> + down_write(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> spin_lock(&flctx->flc_lock);
>>> restart:
>>> for_each_file_lock(fl, list) {
>>> @@ -175,6 +177,7 @@ static int nfs_delegation_claim_locks(struct
>>> nfs4_state *state, const nfs4_state
>>> }
>>> spin_unlock(&flctx->flc_lock);
>>> out:
>>> + up_write(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> return status;
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> index 341740fa293d..06f109c7eb2e 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
>>> @@ -7294,14 +7294,18 @@ static int nfs4_proc_unlck(struct nfs4_state
>>> *state, int cmd, struct file_lock *
>>> status = -ENOMEM;
>>> if (IS_ERR(seqid))
>>> goto out;
>>> + down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> task = nfs4_do_unlck(request,
>>> nfs_file_open_context(request->c.flc_file),
>>> lsp, seqid);
>>> status = PTR_ERR(task);
>>> - if (IS_ERR(task))
>>> + if (IS_ERR(task)) {
>>> + up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> goto out;
>>> + }
>>> status = rpc_wait_for_completion_task(task);
>>> rpc_put_task(task);
>>> + up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> out:
>>> request->c.flc_flags = saved_flags;
>>> trace_nfs4_unlock(request, state, F_SETLK, status);
>>> @@ -7642,7 +7646,9 @@ static int _nfs4_proc_setlk(struct nfs4_state
>>> *state, int cmd, struct file_lock
>>> }
>>> up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> mutex_unlock(&sp->so_delegreturn_mutex);
>>> + down_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> status = _nfs4_do_setlk(state, cmd, request, NFS_LOCK_NEW);
>>> + up_read(&nfsi->rwsem);
>>> out:
>>> request->c.flc_flags = flags;
>>> return status;
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-02 11:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-15 3:05 Li Lingfeng
2025-09-01 14:25 ` Li Lingfeng
2026-01-07 11:07 ` Li Lingfeng
2026-02-02 11:22 ` Li Lingfeng [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9c108a8e-4d74-4a79-978a-41790592a49d@huawei.com \
--to=lilingfeng3@huawei.com \
--cc=anna@kernel.org \
--cc=bcodding@redhat.com \
--cc=houtao1@huawei.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=lilingfeng@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@kernel.org \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=zhangjian496@h-partners.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®