[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804101558280.26562@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:01:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
cc: Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: file offset corruption on 32-bit machines?
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Jeff Robertson analyzes the behaviour of different operating systems'
> > 64-bit file offset implementation and concludes that on 32-bit
> > machines, Linux and Solaris lack any locking to keep the two 32-bit
> > halves in sync and this could cause rare file offset corruption.
> > http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/21014.html
> AFAICS, this race is theoretically possible, but it is very hard (almost
> impossible) to trigger with a sane file usage pattern. Note that you
> have to access shared struct file (same file descriptor) in different
> threads which should be synchronized by caller anyway (*).
... but not in cases the caller is an intentionally evil code, right? :)
> I also don't see any security implications from this race, but maybe
> someone with more knowlage about fs can see (f_pos is used at many
> places in the kernel code).
The f_pos races are in fact exploitable, we've already been there. See
for example http://www.isec.pl/vulnerabilities/isec-0016-procleaks.txt
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists