linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] fs: fix race between llseek SEEK

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: <20181116154424.da6uz56vatmvz7bo@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:44:24 -0800
From:   Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:     Eiichi Tsukata <devel@...ukata.com>
Cc:     andi@...stfloor.org, tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] fs: fix race between llseek SEEK_END and write

> I would like to ask you the following questions;
> 
> Q1. Do you consider this behavior as a bug in kernel?
>     or userspace applications are responseible for it?

Yes I would consider it a bug.

> 
> Q2. If it is a bug, how should we fix it?
> 
> Currently I'm planning to re-introduce generic_file_llseek_unlocked()
> and inode lock in generic_file_llseek() for SEEK_END. Then replace
> generic_file_llseek() with generic_file_llseek_unlocked() if it called
> with inode lock in individual file systems. Please let me know if the
> way is not appropreate or any other better way to fix it.

Sounds reasonable.

-Andi