--- /dev/null
+From 351e5d869e5ac10cb40c78b5f2d7dfc816ad4587 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
+Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2019 11:51:18 -0400
+Subject: configfs: fix a deadlock in configfs_symlink()
+
+From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
+
+commit 351e5d869e5ac10cb40c78b5f2d7dfc816ad4587 upstream.
+
+Configfs abuses symlink(2). Unlike the normal filesystems, it
+wants the target resolved at symlink(2) time, like link(2) would've
+done. The problem is that ->symlink() is called with the parent
+directory locked exclusive, so resolving the target inside the
+->symlink() is easily deadlocked.
+
+Short of really ugly games in sys_symlink() itself, all we can
+do is to unlock the parent before resolving the target and
+relock it after. However, that invalidates the checks done
+by the caller of ->symlink(), so we have to
+ * check that dentry is still where it used to be
+(it couldn't have been moved, but it could've been unhashed)
+ * recheck that it's still negative (somebody else
+might've successfully created a symlink with the same name
+while we were looking the target up)
+ * recheck the permissions on the parent directory.
+
+Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
+Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
+Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+
+---
+ fs/configfs/symlink.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
+ 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
+
+--- a/fs/configfs/symlink.c
++++ b/fs/configfs/symlink.c
+@@ -157,11 +157,42 @@ int configfs_symlink(struct inode *dir,
+ !type->ct_item_ops->allow_link)
+ goto out_put;
+
++ /*
++ * This is really sick. What they wanted was a hybrid of
++ * link(2) and symlink(2) - they wanted the target resolved
++ * at syscall time (as link(2) would've done), be a directory
++ * (which link(2) would've refused to do) *AND* be a deep
++ * fucking magic, making the target busy from rmdir POV.
++ * symlink(2) is nothing of that sort, and the locking it
++ * gets matches the normal symlink(2) semantics. Without
++ * attempts to resolve the target (which might very well
++ * not even exist yet) done prior to locking the parent
++ * directory. This perversion, OTOH, needs to resolve
++ * the target, which would lead to obvious deadlocks if
++ * attempted with any directories locked.
++ *
++ * Unfortunately, that garbage is userland ABI and we should've
++ * said "no" back in 2005. Too late now, so we get to
++ * play very ugly games with locking.
++ *
++ * Try *ANYTHING* of that sort in new code, and you will
++ * really regret it. Just ask yourself - what could a BOFH
++ * do to me and do I want to find it out first-hand?
++ *
++ * AV, a thoroughly annoyed bastard.
++ */
++ inode_unlock(dir);
+ ret = get_target(symname, &path, &target_item, dentry->d_sb);
++ inode_lock(dir);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out_put;
+
+- ret = type->ct_item_ops->allow_link(parent_item, target_item);
++ if (dentry->d_inode || d_unhashed(dentry))
++ ret = -EEXIST;
++ else
++ ret = inode_permission(dir, MAY_WRITE | MAY_EXEC);
++ if (!ret)
++ ret = type->ct_item_ops->allow_link(parent_item, target_item);
+ if (!ret) {
+ mutex_lock(&configfs_symlink_mutex);
+ ret = create_link(parent_item, target_item, dentry);