linux-ext4 - [RFC] weirdness in ext4_sync

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 05:36:05 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] weirdness in ext4_sync_file()

Could somebody explain when would the second part of that test _not_ be true?

                if (!ret && !hlist_empty(&inode->i_dentry))
                        ret = ext4_sync_parent(inode);

inode is that of an opened file; how could it possibly _not_ have a dentry
alias?  Is that code actually supposed to check if the sucker is not
unlinked?  If so, it's not what we are actually checking - pinned dentry
remains positive (and unhashed) after unlink(2).  What's more, the loop
in ext4_sync_parent() is vulnerable to races with rmdir(2) - if you
get unlink and rmdir of ancestors between
                next = igrab(d_inode(dentry->d_parent));
and
                inode = next;
                ret = sync_mapping_buffers(inode->i_mapping);
                if (ret)
                        break;
                ret = sync_inode_metadata(inode, 1);
                if (ret)
                        break;
you are risking interesting things done in the middle of rmdir and/or
unlink; that might be actually safe, but in that case it's worth a comment
explaining that.
--
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