linux-ext4 - [Bug 196405] mkdir mishandles st_nlink in ext4 directory with 64997 subdirectories

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:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 08:56:05 +0000
From:   bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To:     linux-ext4@...nel.org
Subject: [Bug 196405] mkdir mishandles st_nlink in ext4 directory with 64997
 subdirectories

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196405

--- Comment #26 from Paul Eggert (eggert@...ucla.edu) ---
(In reply to Theodore Tso from comment #18)
> One of the things which confuses me is why you think there's so much
> code which tries to use the st_nlink hack.  It's ***much*** simpler to
> just rely on d_type if it exists (and it does on most systems).

This is true only for one particular optimization; it is not true for others.
For example, Gnulib takes advantage of the fact a directory with st_nlink==2
has no subdirectories, if the directory is in a file system where this
optimizatino is known to work. One can't easily use d_type for this.

> 1) The assumption that st_nlink always has the property that it is >2
>    and can be used to derive the number of subdirectories was never
>    valid across all file system types

Yes, and Gnulib exploits the st_nlink assumption only on file systems where it
is useful and/or known to work.

> 2) If you did descend into a file system which didn't support d_type,
>    d_type would be DT_UNKNOWN instead of DT_REG or DT_DIR

Yes, and Gnulib doesn't use the optimization if d_type is DT_UNKNOWN.

> 3) Using DT_DIR is means you can skip the stat check for all directory
>    entries.  If you are doing a recursive descent where you care about
>    the name, you need to call readdir() on all of the directory
>    entries anyway, so you will have access to d_type.  If you are
>    doing a recursive descent where you are checking on file ownership,
>    you are doing the stat(2) anyway, so why not check
>    S_ISDIR(st.st_mode) instead of blindly using the st_nlink hack?

No, you can do even better than that in some cases, if st_nlink works. Suppose
we are implementing the equivalent of 'find . -type d'. If we come across a
directory whose st_nlink == 2, then we don't need to readdir from the directory
at all, much less stat its entries.

> 4) ... if your argument is what about legacy Unix code

There is more of that floating around than I'd like, yes. But I'm mostly
worried about GNU code.

> Can you give me a pointer to the original bug report?  I'm curious how
> things were misbehaving.

https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27739

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.