linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs: simplify handling for s

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, 25 Mar 2010 21:24:43 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs: simplify handling for s_active refcount

NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> writes:

> s_active counts the number of active references to a 'sysfs_direct'.
> When we wish to deactivate a sysfs_direct, we subtract a large
> number for the refcount so it will always appear negative.  When
> it is negative, new references will not be taken.
> After that subtraction, we wait for all the active references to
> drain away.
>
> The subtraction of the large number contains exactly the same
> information as the setting of the flag SYSFS_FLAG_REMOVED.
> (We know this as we already assert that SYSFS_FLAG_REMOVED is set
> before adding the large-negative-bias).
> So doing both is pointless.
>
> By starting s_active with a value of 1, not 0 (as is typical of
> reference counts) and using atomic_inc_not_zero, we can significantly
> simplify the code while keeping exactly the same functionality.

Overall your logic appears correct but in detail this patch scares me.

sd->s_flags is protected by the sysfs_mutex, and you aren't
taking it when you read it.  So in general I don't see the new check
if (sd->s_flags & SYSFS_FLAG_REMOVED) == 0 providing any guarantee of
progress whatsoever with user space applications repeated reading from
a sysfs file when that sysfs file is being removed.  They could easily
have the sd->s_flags value cached and never see the new value, given a
crazy enough cache architecture.

So as attractive as this patch is I don't think it is correct.

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/