linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make last_inode counter in new_inode 32-bit on kernels that offer x86 compatability

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: <20061106211134.GB691@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
Date:	Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:11:34 +0100
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make last_inode counter in new_inode 32-bit on kernels that offer x86 compatability

On Mon, 6 November 2006 14:50:58 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > 
> > While you're at it, how about making last_ino per-sb instead of
> > system-wide?  ino collisions after a wrap are just as bad as inos
> > beyond 32bit.  And this should be a fairly simple method to reduce the
> > risk.
> 
> Using a global counter for multiple filesystems should actually -reduce-
> the chance of a collision on the same filesystem, since after you wrap the
> recycled number may go to a different filesystem.

You're missing something.  The chance for a collision _per wrap_ is
reduced, as you said.  But the number of wraps goes up.  Overall and
for large numbers, the two effects compensate each other.

For not-so-large numbers, you can get by without the wrap by having
this per-sb.  And if you have just one or two wrapping filesystems, at
least the others are protected.  It's not much, but it is a simple
thing to do.

> To fix this properly, we'd need some sort of checking that the inode number
> isn't currently being used on the filesystem in question before it's
> assigned to the new inode.

Absolutely.  Thinking about it, iget() already has a lot of what is
needed - except that it can block and has side effects we don't really
want.  Sounds more complicated, but I would love to be proven wrong
here. :)

Jörn

-- 
Joern's library part 7:
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/neworl/full_papers/mckusick.a
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/