linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH][RFC][BUG] updating the ctime and mtime time stamps in msync()

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]

Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:56:07 +0300
From:	"Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@...il.com>
To:	"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Jakob Oestergaard" <jakob@...hought.net>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC][BUG] updating the ctime and mtime time stamps in msync()

2008/1/10, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:53:59 +0300
> "Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, if msync() is called with MS_SYNC an explicit sync is
> > triggered, and Rik's suggestion would work. However, the POSIX
> > standard requires a call to msync() with MS_ASYNC to update the
> > st_ctime and st_mtime stamps too. No explicit sync of the inode data
> > is triggered in the current implementation of msync(). Hence Rik's
> > suggestion would fail to satisfy POSIX in the latter case.
>
> Since your patch is already changing msync(), has it occurred
> to you that your patch could change msync() to do the right
> thing?

No, not quite. Peter Staubach mentioned an issue in my solution:

>>>

> The patch adds a call to the file_update_time() function to change
> the file metadata before syncing. The patch also contains
> substantial code cleanup: consolidated error check
> for function parameters, using the PAGE_ALIGN() macro instead of
> "manual" alignment check, improved readability of the loop,
> which traverses the process memory regions, updated comments.
>
>

These changes catch the simple case, where the file is mmap'd,
modified via the mmap'd region, and then an msync is done,
all on a mostly quiet system.

However, I don't see how they will work if there has been
something like a sync(2) done after the mmap'd region is
modified and the msync call.  When the inode is written out
as part of the sync process, I_DIRTY_PAGES will be cleared,
thus causing a miss in this code.

The I_DIRTY_PAGES check here is good, but I think that there
needs to be some code elsewhere too, to catch the case where
I_DIRTY_PAGES is being cleared, but the time fields still need
to be updated.

<<<

So I'm working on my next solution for this bug now.

>
> --
> All rights reversed.
>
--
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/