linux-ext4 - [PATCH 07/13] nfs: make nfs_set_verifier() safe for use in RCU pathwalk

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: <20240204021739.1157830-7-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun,  4 Feb 2024 02:17:33 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 07/13] nfs: make nfs_set_verifier() safe for use in RCU pathwalk

nfs_set_verifier() relies upon dentry being pinned; if that's
the case, grabbing ->d_lock stabilizes ->d_parent and guarantees
that ->d_parent points to a positive dentry.  For something
we'd run into in RCU mode that is *not* true - dentry might've
been through dentry_kill() just as we grabbed ->d_lock, with
its parent going through the same just as we get to into
nfs_set_verifier_locked().  It might get to detaching inode
(and zeroing ->d_inode) before nfs_set_verifier_locked() gets
to fetching that; we get an oops as the result.

That can happen in nfs{,4} ->d_revalidate(); the call chain in
question is nfs_set_verifier_locked() <- nfs_set_verifier() <-
nfs_lookup_revalidate_delegated() <- nfs{,4}_do_lookup_revalidate().
We have checked that the parent had been positive, but that's
done before we get to nfs_set_verifier() and it's possible for
memory pressure to pick our dentry as eviction candidate by that
time.  If that happens, back-to-back attempts to kill dentry and
its parent are quite normal.  Sure, in case of eviction we'll
fail the ->d_seq check in the caller, but we need to survive
until we return there...

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
---
 fs/nfs/dir.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/nfs/dir.c b/fs/nfs/dir.c
index c8ecbe999059..ac505671efbd 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/dir.c
@@ -1431,9 +1431,9 @@ static bool nfs_verifier_is_delegated(struct dentry *dentry)
 static void nfs_set_verifier_locked(struct dentry *dentry, unsigned long verf)
 {
 	struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
-	struct inode *dir = d_inode(dentry->d_parent);
+	struct inode *dir = d_inode_rcu(dentry->d_parent);

-	if (!nfs_verify_change_attribute(dir, verf))
+	if (!dir || !nfs_verify_change_attribute(dir, verf))
 		return;
 	if (inode && NFS_PROTO(inode)->have_delegation(inode, FMODE_READ))
 		nfs_set_verifier_delegated(&verf);
-- 
2.39.2