linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH V2 07/12] fs: Add locking for a dynamic inode 'mode'

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: <20200114010322.GS8247@magnolia>
Date:   Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:03:22 -0800
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 07/12] fs: Add locking for a dynamic inode 'mode'

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 04:20:05PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 02:12:18PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:29:37AM -0800, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > >  
> > >  The File Object
> > >  ---------------
> > > @@ -437,6 +459,8 @@ As of kernel 2.6.22, the following members are defined:
> > >  		int (*atomic_open)(struct inode *, struct dentry *, struct file *,
> > >  				   unsigned open_flag, umode_t create_mode);
> > >  		int (*tmpfile) (struct inode *, struct dentry *, umode_t);
> > > +		void (*lock_mode)(struct inode *);
> > > +		void (*unlock_mode)(struct inode *);
> > 
> > Yikes.  "mode" has a specific meaning for inodes, and this lock isn't
> > related to i_mode.  This lock protects aops from changing while an
> > address space operation is in use.
> 
> Ah...  yea ok mode is a bad name.
> 
> > 
> > >  	};
> > >  
> > >  Again, all methods are called without any locks being held, unless
> > > @@ -584,6 +608,12 @@ otherwise noted.
> > >  	atomically creating, opening and unlinking a file in given
> > >  	directory.
> > >  
> > > +``lock_mode``
> > > +	called to prevent operations which depend on the inode's mode from
> > > +        proceeding should a mode change be in progress
> > 
> > "Inodes can't change mode, because files do not suddenly become
> > directories". ;)
> 
> Yea sorry.
> 
> > 
> > Oh, you meant "lock_XXXX is called to prevent a change in the pagecache
> > mode from proceeding while there are address space operations in
> > progress".  So these are really more aops get and put functions...
> 
> At first I actually did have aops get/put functions but this is really
> protecting more than the aops vector because as Christoph said there are file
> operations which need to be protected not just address space operations.
> 
> But I agree "mode" is a bad name...  Sorry...

inode_fops_{get,set}(), then?

inode_start_fileop()
inode_end_fileop() ?

Trying to avoid sounding foppish <COUGH>

> > 
> > > +``unlock_mode``
> > > +	called when critical mode dependent operation is complete
> > >  
> > >  The Address Space Object
> > >  ========================
> > > diff --git a/fs/ioctl.c b/fs/ioctl.c
> > > index 7c9a5df5a597..ed6ab5303a24 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ioctl.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ioctl.c
> > > @@ -55,18 +55,29 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(vfs_ioctl);
> > >  static int ioctl_fibmap(struct file *filp, int __user *p)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct address_space *mapping = filp->f_mapping;
> > > +	struct inode *inode = filp->f_inode;
> > >  	int res, block;
> > >  
> > > +	lock_inode_mode(inode);
> > > +
> > >  	/* do we support this mess? */
> > > -	if (!mapping->a_ops->bmap)
> > > -		return -EINVAL;
> > > -	if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
> > > -		return -EPERM;
> > > +	if (!mapping->a_ops->bmap) {
> > > +		res = -EINVAL;
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +	}
> > > +	if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) {
> > > +		res = -EPERM;
> > > +		goto out;
> > 
> > Why does the order of these checks change here?
> 
> I don't understand?  The order does not change we just can't return without
> releasing the lock.  And to protect against bmap changing the lock needs to be
> taken first.

Doh.  -ENOCOFFEE, I plead.

--D

> [snip]
> 
> > >  
> > > +static inline void lock_inode_mode(struct inode *inode)
> > 
> > inode_aops_get()?
> 
> Let me think on this.  This is not just getting a reference to the aops vector.
> It is more than that...  and inode_get is not right either!  ;-P
> 
> > 
> > > +{
> > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(inode->i_op->lock_mode &&
> > > +		     !inode->i_op->unlock_mode);
> > > +	if (inode->i_op->lock_mode)
> > > +		inode->i_op->lock_mode(inode);
> > > +}
> > > +static inline void unlock_inode_mode(struct inode *inode)
> > > +{
> > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(inode->i_op->unlock_mode &&
> > > +		     !inode->i_op->lock_mode);
> > > +	if (inode->i_op->unlock_mode)
> > > +		inode->i_op->unlock_mode(inode);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  static inline ssize_t call_read_iter(struct file *file, struct kiocb *kio,
> > >  				     struct iov_iter *iter)
> > 
> > inode_aops_put()?
> 
> ...  something like that but not 'aops'...
> 
> Ira
> 
> > 
> > --D
> >