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>
---
 tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 12 ++++++++----
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
index fc79d5ac43..eadd568435 100644
--- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
+++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
@@ -1805,14 +1805,18 @@ 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);
-- 
2.23.0

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 04:38:48PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert (git) wrote:
> 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>
> ---
>  tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 12 ++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|