[PULL,090/111] virtiofsd: make lo_release() atomic
diff mbox series

Message ID 20200123115841.138849-91-dgilbert@redhat.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • virtiofs queue
Related show

Commit Message

Dr. David Alan Gilbert Jan. 23, 2020, 11:58 a.m. UTC
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>

Hold the lock across both lo_map_get() and lo_map_remove() to prevent
races between two FUSE_RELEASE requests.  In this case I don't see a
serious bug but it's safer to do things atomically.

Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
---
 tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
index 9414935b52..690edbc4c5 100644
--- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
@@ -1772,14 +1772,18 @@  static void lo_release(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino,
                        struct fuse_file_info *fi)
 {
     struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
-    int fd;
+    struct lo_map_elem *elem;
+    int fd = -1;
 
     (void)ino;
 
-    fd = lo_fi_fd(req, fi);
-
     pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);
-    lo_map_remove(&lo->fd_map, fi->fh);
+    elem = lo_map_get(&lo->fd_map, fi->fh);
+    if (elem) {
+        fd = elem->fd;
+        elem = NULL;
+        lo_map_remove(&lo->fd_map, fi->fh);
+    }
     pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);
 
     close(fd);