linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Prevent creation of files larger than RLIMIT

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]

Message-Id: <201005031319.44538.knikanth@suse.de>
Date:	Mon, 3 May 2010 13:19:44 +0530
From:	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
To:	"Amit K. Arora" <aarora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, coly.li@...e.de,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Eelis <opensuse.org@...tacts.eelis.net>,
	Amit Arora <aarora@...ibm.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent creation of files larger than RLIMIT_FSIZE using fallocate

On Monday 03 May 2010 12:29:45 Amit K. Arora wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 09:53:44AM +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 May 2010 12:34:26 Amit K. Arora wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 02:33:19PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Also, there doesn't seem to be much point in doing
> > > >
> > > > 	mutex_lock(i_mutex);
> > > > 	if (some_condition)
> > > > 		bale out
> > > > 	mutex_unlock(i_mutex);
> > > >
> > > > 	<stuff>
> > > >
> > > > because `some_condition' can now become true before or during the
> > > > execution of `stuff'.
> > > >
> > > > IOW, it's racy.
> >
> > oh, yes. :(
> >
> > > Agreed. How about doing this check in the filesystem specific fallocate
> > > inode routines instead ? For example, in ext4 we could do :
> >
> > I guess, calling the filesystem specific fallocate with the lock held
> > would create lock ordering problems? If so, this might be the only way.
> > But it would be better to document at the call site, that the callee
> > should check for RLIMIT_FSIZE.
> 
> Hmm.. I never said to call the filesystem specific fallocate with
> i_mutex held. What I suggested was that each filesystem at some point
> anyhow takes the i_mutex to preallocate. Thats where the check should
> be, to avoid the race. This is what the example patch below does.
> 

Yes, you never said that. But I just wondered whether that would be have 
problems and doing the check in filesystem specific fallocate is the only 
solution. :)

Thanks
Nikanth
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html