linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] direct-io: fix stale data exposure from concurrent buffered read

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: <x49d1oz5l64.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 May 2016 10:13:39 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "Theodore T'so" <tytso@...gle.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] direct-io: fix stale data exposure from concurrent buffered read

Eryu Guan <guaneryu@...il.com> writes:

> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 03:39:29PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> I think this code operates on blocks for a reason: we're trying to
>> determine if we'll trigger block allocation, right?  For example,
>> consider a sparse file with i_size of 2k, and a write to offset 2k into
>> the file, with a file system block size of 4k.  Should that have create
>> set or not?
>
> Thanks for pointing this out! I think 'create' should be 0 in this case,
> my test failed in this case, with both 4.6-rc6 stock kernel and my
> patched kernel.
>
> I'm testing an updated patch now, hopefully it's doing the right thing.
> It's basiclly something like:
>
> if (offset < i_size)
> 	create = 0;
> else if ((block_in_file >> blkfactor) == (i_size >> (blkbits + blkfactor)) &&
> 	 (i_size & ((1 << (blkbits + blkfactor)) - 1)))
> 	create = 0;

I think that can be simplified to a single check;  something like:

	if (block_in_file < total_blocks_in_file)
		create = 0;

>> > Also introduce some local variables to make the code
>> > easier to read a little bit.
>> 
>> Please don't do this.  You're only making the change harder to review.
>> Just submit the minimal fix.  You can submit cleanups as a follow-on.
>
> I think it's not a pure cleanup, it's needed as things like
> 'sdio->block_in_file' are referenced multiple times in the function, and
> they are making the lines too long to read/write. Maybe I should have
> made it clear in the first place.

I still view that as a cleanup.  If you had submitted the minimal patch,
I would have to look at a couple lines of change.  In code this tricky,
I'd rather not have to stare at all the code movement to make sure
you got that part right, too.

But do what you feel is right, I'll review it either way.  ;-)

Thanks, Eryu!
Jeff
--
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