linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod (v2)

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, 18 Sep 2007 12:54:56 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Wake up mandatory locks waiter on chmod (v2)

On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 12:52 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:14:55PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > Note also that strictly speaking, we're not even compliant with the
> > System V behaviour on read() and write(). See:
> > 
> >   http://www.unix.org.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/nfs/ch11_01.htm
> > and
> >   http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/801-6736/6i13fom0a?l=en&a=view&q=mandatory+lock
> > 
> > According to these docs, we should be wrapping each and every read() and
> > write() syscall with a mandatory lock. The fact that we're not, and yet
> > still not seeing any complaints just goes to show how few people are
> > actually using and relying on this...
> 
> So currently there's nothing to prevent this:
> 
> 				- write passes locks_mandatory_area() checks
> 	- get mandatory lock
> 	- read old data
> 				- write updates file data
> 	- read new data
> 
> You can see the data change even while you hold a mandatory lock that
> should exclude writes.
> 
> Similarly you might think that an application could prevent anyone from
> seeing the intermediate state of a file while it performs a series of
> writes under an exclusive mandatory lock, but actually there's nothing
> to stop a read in progress from racing with acquisition of the lock.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, that makes our mandatory lock
> implementation pretty pointless.  I wish we could either fix it or just
> ditch it, but I suppose either option would be unpopular.

It gets even better when you throw mmap() into the mix :-)

Trond

-
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/