linux-kernel - Re: VFS deadlock ?

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:	Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:08:03 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: VFS deadlock ?

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 04:58:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> And the only other reason we don't want to allow it is to make sure
> you can't have directory loops etc, afaik, and again, for this
> particular case of /proc, we happen to be ok.

Not really.  Do that and yes, this deadlock goes away.  But the locking
order in general goes to hell - we order directory inodes by "which dentry
is an ancestor of another?"  So we have no warranty that we won't get
alias1/foo/bar/baz < alias2/foo.  Take rename_lock() on those two and
have it race with rmdir alias2/foo/bar/baz (locks alias2/foo/bar, then
alias2/foo/bar/baz) and rmdir alias2/foo/bar (locks alias2/foo and
alias2/foo/bar).  Oops - we have a cycle now...
--
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/