diff options
| author | J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> | 2008-03-15 02:37:11 +0300 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2008-03-15 02:49:15 +0300 |
| commit | b663c6fd98c9cf586279db03cec3257c413efd00 (patch) | |
| tree | f268ae9e706044f48d2f95fcb4841ce89c70cf4b /fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c | |
| parent | 9b89ca7a3847c0d5b1e86e83f4860a866f28a89b (diff) | |
| download | linux-b663c6fd98c9cf586279db03cec3257c413efd00.tar.xz | |
nfsd: fix oops on access from high-numbered ports
This bug was always here, but before my commit 6fa02839bf9412e18e77
("recheck for secure ports in fh_verify"), it could only be triggered by
failure of a kmalloc(). After that commit it could be triggered by a
client making a request from a non-reserved port for access to an export
marked "secure". (Exports are "secure" by default.)
The result is a struct svc_export with a reference count one too low,
resulting in likely oopses next time the export is accessed.
The reference counting here is not straightforward; a later patch will
clean up fh_verify().
Thanks to Lukas Hejtmanek for the bug report and followup.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Cc: Lukas Hejtmanek <xhejtman@ics.muni.cz>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c | 4 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c b/fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c index 1eb771d79cca..3e6b3f41ee1f 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c @@ -232,6 +232,7 @@ fh_verify(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp, int type, int access) fhp->fh_dentry = dentry; fhp->fh_export = exp; nfsd_nr_verified++; + cache_get(&exp->h); } else { /* * just rechecking permissions @@ -241,6 +242,7 @@ fh_verify(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp, int type, int access) dprintk("nfsd: fh_verify - just checking\n"); dentry = fhp->fh_dentry; exp = fhp->fh_export; + cache_get(&exp->h); /* * Set user creds for this exportpoint; necessary even * in the "just checking" case because this may be a @@ -252,8 +254,6 @@ fh_verify(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct svc_fh *fhp, int type, int access) if (error) goto out; } - cache_get(&exp->h); - error = nfsd_mode_check(rqstp, dentry->d_inode->i_mode, type); if (error) |