[Virtio-fs] [PATCH 3/4] virtiofsd: fix lo_destroy() resource leaks

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 07:57:51PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Dr. David Alan Gilbert (dgilbert at redhat.com) wrote:
> > * Stefan Hajnoczi (stefanha at redhat.com) wrote:
> > > Now that lo_destroy() is serialized we can call unref_inode() so that
> > > all inode resources are freed.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert at redhat.com>
> > 
> > > ---
> > >  contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 43 ++++++++++++++----------------
> > >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > index a81c01d0d1..02a5e97326 100644
> > > --- a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > +++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> > > @@ -1340,28 +1340,6 @@ static void unref_inode(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode, uint64_t n)
> > >  	}
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static int unref_all_inodes_cb(gpointer key, gpointer value,
> > > -			       gpointer user_data)
> > > -{
> > > -	struct lo_inode *inode  = value;
> > > -	struct lo_data *lo = user_data;
> > > -
> > > -	inode->nlookup = 0;
> > > -	lo_map_remove(&lo->ino_map, inode->fuse_ino);
> > > -	close(inode->fd);
> > > -	lo_inode_put(lo, &inode); /* Drop our refcount from lo_do_lookup() */
> > > -
> > > -	return TRUE;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > -static void unref_all_inodes(struct lo_data *lo)
> > > -{
> > > -	pthread_mutex_lock(&lo->mutex);
> > > -	g_hash_table_foreach_remove(lo->inodes, unref_all_inodes_cb, lo);
> > > -	pthread_mutex_unlock(&lo->mutex);
> > > -
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  static void lo_forget_one(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, uint64_t nlookup)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct lo_data *lo = lo_data(req);
> > > @@ -2462,6 +2440,18 @@ static void lo_removemapping(fuse_req_t req, struct fuse_session *se,
> > >  	fuse_reply_err(req, ret);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static int destroy_inode_cb(gpointer key, gpointer value, gpointer user_data)
> > > +{
> > > +        struct lo_inode *inode = value;
> > > +        struct lo_data *lo = user_data;
> > > +
> > > +        /* inode->nlookup is normally protected by lo->mutex but see the
> > > +         * comment in lo_destroy().
> > > +         */
> > > +        unref_inode(lo, inode, inode->nlookup);
> > > +        return TRUE;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  static void lo_destroy(void *userdata, struct fuse_session *se)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct lo_data *lo = (struct lo_data*) userdata;
> > > @@ -2475,7 +2465,14 @@ static void lo_destroy(void *userdata, struct fuse_session *se)
> > >                          fuse_err("%s: unmap during destroy failed\n", __func__);
> > >                  }
> > >          }
> > > -	unref_all_inodes(lo);
> > > +
> > > +        /* Normally lo->mutex must be taken when traversing lo->inodes but
> > > +         * lo_destroy() is a serialized request so no races are possible here.
> > > +         *
> > > +         * In addition, we cannot acquire lo->mutex since destroy_inode_cb() takes it
> > > +         * too and this would result in a recursive lock.
> > > +         */
> > > +        g_hash_table_foreach_remove(lo->inodes, destroy_inode_cb, lo);
> 
> I'm seeing a crash here if I ctrl-c the virtiofsd after it's got an
> active mount:
> 
> (process:3219): GLib-CRITICAL **: 18:42:08.334: g_hash_table_foreach_remove_or_steal: assertion 'version == hash_table->version' failed

The hash table was modified by unref_inode() so
g_hash_table_foreach_remove() panics.

I'll come up with a different way of doing this.

Stefan