linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 11/32] vfs: make do

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:45:20 -0400
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	michael.brantley@...haw.com, hch@...radead.org, miklos@...redi.hu,
	pstaubach@...grid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 11/32] vfs: make do_unlinkat retry on ESTALE errors

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:28:09 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:33:55PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:14:29 -0400
> > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 08:33:18AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/namei.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> > > > index 7c9bb50..467b9f1 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/namei.c
> > > > @@ -3446,9 +3446,13 @@ static long do_unlinkat(int dfd, const char __user *pathname)
> > > >  	struct filename *name;
> > > >  	struct dentry *dentry;
> > > >  	struct nameidata nd;
> > > > -	struct inode *inode = NULL;
> > > > +	struct inode *inode;
> > > > +	unsigned int try = 0;
> > > > +	unsigned int lookup_flags = LOOKUP_PARENT;
> > > >  
> > > > -	name = user_path_parent(dfd, pathname, &nd, 0);
> > > > +retry:
> > > > +	inode = NULL;
> > > 
> > > So, you fail after "inode" was set (say vfs_unlink returned an error)
> > > the first time, then before "inode" was set (lookup_hash returns an
> > > error), and you end up incorrectly doing another iput() the second time
> > > through if you don't reset inode here?
> > > 
> > > (I think I made the same mistake in another patch, actually....)
> > > 
> > > --b.
> > > 
> > 
> > Correct. That's a new delta in this patch, btw. The original patch
> > didn't do that and it was causing a busy inodes on umount bug in
> > testing.
> > 
> > It would occasionally hit an ESTALE error in this function and
> > because "inode" wasn't reset to NULL, it would do a double-put of the
> > inode and cause the counter to underflow.
> > 
> > It might be good to restructure this code to make those sorts of bugs
> > less likely, but the error handling in here is already so hairy that I
> > decided to punt on that for now...
> 
> Understood.  I might find it just a little more obvious why we're doing
> this if the assignment was next to the final iput:
> 
> 	if (inode)
> 		iput(inode);
> 	inode = NULL;
> 	...
> 

Yeah, my initial patch did something similar (but inside the "if"
block). Ultimately, though I figured it was best to avoid setting
"inode" unless it was needed.

The patch I've got basically does that, but it's not as obvious as the
other way. Maybe I should just go ahead and try to clean up that logic
after all. Unrolling the error handling there is pretty nasty though.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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/