linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: take i_mutex in ext4_symlink to eliminate a warning from ext4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:06:35 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@...bao.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: take i_mutex in ext4_symlink to eliminate a
 warning from ext4_truncate

I looked more closely at the assumption that ext4_write_begin() holds
i_mutex.  This is guaranteed by Documentation/filesystems/Locking,
which notes that write_begin() and write_end() functions hold i_mutex:

			PageLocked(page)	i_mutex
write_begin:		locks the page		yes
write_end:		yes, unlocks		yes

So the bug is that ext4_symlink() calls __page_symlink();
__page_symlink() calls pagecache_write_begin() which calls
write_begin(), without taking i_mutex.

So we can fix this by taking i_mutex in ext4_symlink(), but I think it
would be better to take the i_mutex in __page_symlink(), since it
would then address a violation of the locking rules for all file
systems.

Al, do you agree?

					- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html