linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] libfs: Validate negative dentries in case-insensitive directories

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230722042939.GC5660@sol.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 21:29:39 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...e.de>
Cc:     brauner@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] libfs: Validate negative dentries in
 case-insensitive directories

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:16:30PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:06:57PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> >> 
> >> I'm also having trouble understanding exactly when ->d_name is stable here.
> >> AFAICS, unfortunately the VFS has an edge case where a dentry can be moved
> >> without its parent's ->i_rwsem being held.  It happens when a subdirectory is
> >> "found" under multiple names.  The VFS doesn't support directory hard links, so
> >> if it finds a second link to a directory, it just moves the whole dentry tree to
> >> the new location.  This can happen if a filesystem image is corrupted and
> >> contains directory hard links.  Coincidentally, it can also happen in an
> >> encrypted directory due to the no-key name => normal name transition...
> >
> > Sorry, I think I got this slightly wrong.  The move does happen with the
> > parent's ->i_rwsem held, but it's for read, not for write.  First, before
> > ->lookup is called, the ->i_rwsem of the parent directory is taken for read.
> > ->lookup() calls d_splice_alias() which can call __d_unalias() which does the
> > __d_move().  If the old alias is in a different directory (which cannot happen
> > in that fscrypt case, but can happen in the general "directory hard links"
> > case), __d_unalias() takes that directory's ->i_rwsem for read too.
> >
> > So it looks like the parent's ->i_rwsem does indeed exclude moves of child
> > dentries, but only if it's taken for *write*.  So I guess you can rely on that;
> > it's just a bit more subtle than it first appears.  Though, some of your
> > explanation seems to assume that a read lock is sufficient ("In __lookup_slow,
> > either the parent inode is locked by the caller (lookup_slow) ..."), so maybe
> > there is still a problem.
> 
> I think I'm missing something on your clarification. I see your point
> about __d_unalias, and I see in the case where alias->d_parent !=
> dentry->d_parent we acquire the parent inode read lock:
> 
> static int __d_unalias(struct inode *inode,
> 		struct dentry *dentry, struct dentry *alias)
> {
> ...
> 	m1 = &dentry->d_sb->s_vfs_rename_mutex;
> 	if (!inode_trylock_shared(alias->d_parent->d_inode))
> 		goto out_err;
> }
> 
> And it seems to use that for __d_move. In this case, __d_move changes
> from under us even with a read lock, which is dangerous.  I think I
> agree with your first email more than the clarification.
> 
> In the lookup_slow then:
> 
> lookup_slow()
>   d_lookup()
>     d_splice_alias()
>       __d_unalias()
>         __d_move()
> 
> this __d_move Can do a dentry move and race with d_revalidate even
> though it has the parent read lock.
> 
> > So it looks like the parent's ->i_rwsem does indeed exclude moves of child
> > dentries, but only if it's taken for *write*.  So I guess you can rely on that;
> 
> We can get away of it with acquiring the d_lock as you suggested, I
> think.  But can you clarify the above? I wanna make sure I didn't miss
> anything. I am indeed relying only on the read lock here, as you can see.

In my first email I thought that __d_move() can be called without the parent
inode's i_rwsem held at all.  In my second email I realized that it is always
called with at least a read (shared) lock.

The question is what kind of parent i_rwsem lock is guaranteed to be held by the
caller of ->d_revalidate() when the name comparison is done.  Based on the
above, it needs to be at least a write (exclusive) lock to exclude __d_move()
without taking d_lock.  However, your analysis (in the commit message of "libfs:
Validate negative dentries in case-insensitive directories") only talks about
i_rwsem being "taken", without saying whether it's for read or write.  One thing
you mentioned as taking i_rwsem is lookup_slow, but that only takes it for read.
That seems like a problem, as it makes your analysis not correct.

- Eric