[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080410152212.GF6725@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:22:12 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
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, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:31:09PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > Well, this race is more subtle - the window is just one instruction
> > > wide (stores to f_pos from CPU2 must come between the store of lower and
> > > upper 32-bits of f_pos on CPU1). And the only result is that f_pos has
> > > 32-bits from one file pointer and 32-bits from the other one. So I can
> > > hardly imagine this would be exploitable...
> >
> > Supposing you are not holding any spinlock and are running with
> > preemptible kernel (pretty common scenario nowadays), there is nothing
> > that would prevent kernel from rescheduling between the two instructions,
> > enlarging the race window to be more comfortable for attacker, right?
> >
> > I think this is worth fixing.
>
> Seems a lot like reading jiffies to me. Is the seqlock the right
> solution to use for fixing this?
You can get your inspiration in the implementation of i_size_read()
and i_size_write() functions :). They deal with exactly the same problem.
But in the case of f_pos, the number of readers and writers is balanced so
maybe a spinlock would be fine as well...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR 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