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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 10:05:05 -0400 From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>, "bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org> Cc: "zohar@...ux.ibm.com" <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, "djwong@...nel.org" <djwong@...nel.org>, "xiubli@...hat.com" <xiubli@...hat.com>, "brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>, "neilb@...e.de" <neilb@...e.de>, "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>, "david@...morbit.com" <david@...morbit.com>, "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "chuck.lever@...cle.com" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, "linux-man@...r.kernel.org" <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>, "tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>, "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>, "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "lczerner@...hat.com" <lczerner@...hat.com>, "adilger.kernel@...ger.ca" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, "ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new STATX_INO_VERSION field On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 13:55 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 09:12 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 08:52 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:47:20AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 21:37 +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 07 Sep 2022, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > +The change to \fIstatx.stx_ino_version\fP is not atomic with > > > > > > respect to the > > > > > > +other changes in the inode. On a write, for instance, the > > > > > > i_version it usually > > > > > > +incremented before the data is copied into the pagecache. > > > > > > Therefore it is > > > > > > +possible to see a new i_version value while a read still > > > > > > shows the old data. > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't that make the value useless? > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I don't think so. It's only really useful for comparing to an > > > > older > > > > sample anyway. If you do "statx; read; statx" and the value > > > > hasn't > > > > changed, then you know that things are stable. > > > > > > I don't see how that helps. It's still possible to get: > > > > > > reader writer > > > ------ ------ > > > i_version++ > > > statx > > > read > > > statx > > > update page cache > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > Yeah, I suppose so -- the statx wouldn't necessitate any locking. In > > that case, maybe this is useless then other than for testing purposes > > and userland NFS servers. > > > > Would it be better to not consume a statx field with this if so? What > > could we use as an alternate interface? ioctl? Some sort of global > > virtual xattr? It does need to be something per-inode. > > I don't see how a non-atomic change attribute is remotely useful even > for NFS. > > The main problem is not so much the above (although NFS clients are > vulnerable to that too) but the behaviour w.r.t. directory changes. > > If the server can't guarantee that file/directory/... creation and > unlink are atomically recorded with change attribute updates, then the > client has to always assume that the server is lying, and that it has > to revalidate all its caches anyway. Cue endless readdir/lookup/getattr > requests after each and every directory modification in order to check > that some other client didn't also sneak in a change of their own. > We generally hold the parent dir's inode->i_rwsem exclusively over most important directory changes, and the times/i_version are also updated while holding it. What we don't do is serialize reads of this value vs. the i_rwsem, so you could see new directory contents alongside an old i_version. Maybe we should be taking it for read when we query it on a directory? Achieving atomicity with file writes though is another matter entirely. I'm not sure that's even doable or how to approach it if so. Suggestions? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists