linux-kernel - Re: [Bluez-devel] Oops involving RFCOMM and sysfs

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: <m1abnikpuz.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:21:40 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Gabor Gombas <gombasg@...aki.hu>,
	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bluez-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, ebiederm@...ssion.com
Subject: Re: [Bluez-devel] Oops involving RFCOMM and sysfs

Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Al Viro wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:30:25PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>>> Assuming that this is what we get, everything looks explainable - we
>>>>> have sysfs_rename_dir() calling sysfs_get_dentry() while the parent
>>>>> gets evicted.  We don't have any exclusion, so while we are playing
>>>>> silly buggers with lookups in sysfs_get_dentry() we have parent become
>>>>> negative; the rest is obvious...
>>>> That part of code is walking down the sysfs tree from the s_root of
>>>> sysfs hierarchy and on each step parent is held using dget() while being
>>>> referenced, so I don't think they can turn negative there.
>>> Turn?  Just what stops you from getting a negative (and unhashed) from
>>> lookup_one_noperm() and on the next iteration being buggered on mutex_lock()?
>> 
>> Right, I haven't thought about that.  When sysfs_get_dentry() is called,
>> @sd is always valid so unless there was existing negative dentry, lookup
>> is guaranteed to return positive dentry, but by populating dcache with
>> negative dentry before a node is created, things can go wrong.  I don't
>> think that's what's going on here tho.  If that was the case, the
>> while() loop looking up the next sd to lookup (@cur) should have blown
>> up as negative dentry will have NULL d_fsdata which doesn't match any sd.
>> 
>> I guess what's needed here is d_revalidate() as other distributed
>> filesystems do.  I'll test whether this can be actually triggered and
>> prepare a fix.  Thanks a lot for pointing out the problem.
>
> This can't happen because lookup of non-existent entry doesn't create a
> negative dentry.  The new dentry is never hashed and killed after lookup
> failure, the above scenario can't happen.
>
> That said, the mechanism is a bit too fragile.  sysfs currently ensures
> that dentry/inode point to the associated sysfs_dirent.  This is mainly
> remanent of conversion from previous VFS based implementation.  I think
> the right thing to do here is to make sysfs behave like other proper
> distributed filesystems using d_revalidate.

Huh?  We still need something like sysfs_get_dentry to find the dentries
for the rename or move operation.  So we can call d_move.  

Further we should be talking about sysfs_move_dir not sysfs_rename_dir
as only the networking code calls sysfs_rename_dir.  Not that it is
significantly different.

I think I saw a change in lock ordering recently to help distributed
filesystems, and maybe that will simplify some of this.

Anyway I figure if I am to understand this I better go look and see if
I can find the start of this thread.  I don't have a clue
where we are blowing up.

Eric
--
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/