linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.2 38/52] Btrfs: fix race when listing an inode's xattrs

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:	Wed, 25 Nov 2015 23:11:00 +0000
From:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.2 38/52] Btrfs: fix race when listing an inode's xattrs

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:33:59PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.2.74-rc1 review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> ------------------
> 
> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
> 
> commit f1cd1f0b7d1b5d4aaa5711e8f4e4898b0045cb6d upstream.
> 
> When listing a inode's xattrs we have a time window where we race against
> a concurrent operation for adding a new hard link for our inode that makes
> us not return any xattr to user space. In order for this to happen, the
> first xattr of our inode needs to be at slot 0 of a leaf and the previous
> leaf must still have room for an inode ref (or extref) item, and this can
> happen because an inode's listxattrs callback does not lock the inode's
> i_mutex (nor does the VFS does it for us), but adding a hard link to an
> inode makes the VFS lock the inode's i_mutex before calling the inode's
> link callback.
> 
> If we have the following leafs:
> 
>                Leaf X (has N items)                    Leaf Y
> 
>  [ ... (257 INODE_ITEM 0) (257 INODE_REF 256) ]  [ (257 XATTR_ITEM 12345), ... ]
>            slot N - 2         slot N - 1              slot 0
> 
> The race illustrated by the following sequence diagram is possible:
> 
>        CPU 1                                               CPU 2
> 
>   btrfs_listxattr()
> 
>     searches for key (257 XATTR_ITEM 0)
> 
>     gets path with path->nodes[0] == leaf X
>     and path->slots[0] == N
> 
>     because path->slots[0] is >=
>     btrfs_header_nritems(leaf X), it calls
>     btrfs_next_leaf()
> 
>     btrfs_next_leaf()
>       releases the path
> 
>                                                    adds key (257 INODE_REF 666)
>                                                    to the end of leaf X (slot N),
>                                                    and leaf X now has N + 1 items
> 
>       searches for the key (257 INODE_REF 256),
>       with path->keep_locks == 1, because that
>       is the last key it saw in leaf X before
>       releasing the path
> 
>       ends up at leaf X again and it verifies
>       that the key (257 INODE_REF 256) is no
>       longer the last key in leaf X, so it
>       returns with path->nodes[0] == leaf X
>       and path->slots[0] == N, pointing to
>       the new item with key (257 INODE_REF 666)
> 
>     btrfs_listxattr's loop iteration sees that
>     the type of the key pointed by the path is
>     different from the type BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY
>     and so it breaks the loop and stops looking
>     for more xattr items
>       --> the application doesn't get any xattr
>           listed for our inode
> 
> So fix this by breaking the loop only if the key's type is greater than
> BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY and skip the current key if its type is smaller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
> [bwh: Backported to 3.2: s/found_key\.type/btrfs_key_type(\&found_key)/]

Actually, in my backport to 3.16 I decided to keep the usage of
'found_key.type' instead, as the usage of btrfs_key_type() has been
dropped with commit 962a298f3511 ("btrfs: kill the key type accessor
helpers").

Cheers,
--
Luís

> Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/xattr.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- a/fs/btrfs/xattr.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/xattr.c
> @@ -259,8 +259,10 @@ ssize_t btrfs_listxattr(struct dentry *d
>  		/* check to make sure this item is what we want */
>  		if (found_key.objectid != key.objectid)
>  			break;
> -		if (btrfs_key_type(&found_key) != BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY)
> +		if (btrfs_key_type(&found_key) > BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY)
>  			break;
> +		if (btrfs_key_type(&found_key) < BTRFS_XATTR_ITEM_KEY)
> +			goto next;
>  
>  		di = btrfs_item_ptr(leaf, slot, struct btrfs_dir_item);
>  		if (verify_dir_item(root, leaf, di))
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/