linux-kernel - Re: sys_write() racy for multi-threaded append?

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, 8 Mar 2007 15:57:22 -0800
From:	"Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>
To:	"Eric Dumazet" <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sys_write() racy for multi-threaded append?

On 3/8/07, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> Nothing in the manuals says that write() on same fd should be non racy : In
> particular file pos might be undefined. There is a reason pwrite() exists.
>
> Kernel doesnt have to enforce thread safety as standard is quite clear.

I know the standard _allows_ us to crash and burn (well, corrupt
f_pos) when two threads race on an fd, but why would we want to?
Wouldn't it be better to do something at least slightly sane, like add
atomically to f_pos the expected number of number of bytes written,
then do the write, then fix it up (again atomically) if vfs_write
returns an unexpected pos?

> Only O_APPEND case is specially handled (and NFS might fail to handle this
> case correctly)

Is it?  How?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/