linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vfs: fix race in rcu lookup of pruned dentry

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:	Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:31:03 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: fix race in rcu lookup of pruned dentry

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 06:13:34PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
>> And in the genuine negative dentry case: at present (with or without
>> my or Linus's patches) there is no final nd->seq check, is there?
>
> For stat() - no, there isn't.  We really bail out with -ENOENT, no matter
> what.  Racy, which is what you are hitting.

The fundamental bug is in the dentry pruning. Not in lookup. If the
lookup sees a negative dentry, it will currently return ENOENT. Not
unlazy the thing like you claim. Your patch makes it unlazy the RCU
walk for a negative dentry and then retry that it currently doesn't -
for both the racy case (nobody cares, since that isn't performance
critical) _and_ for the normal real negative case.

And it's that "normal real negative case" that I really think that
your "goto unlazy" is just wrong. It's right for the sequence number
change, but not for the "!inode" case.

Now, I do agree that maybe that case simply should check the dentry
sequence count. I wish all cases did. Hugh patch did that. But the
reason I dislike Hugh's patch is that when I say "I wish they all
did", I mean that I dislike the special casing. And Hugh's patch just
adds *more* special casing for that NULL entry - I'd wish we just
always did it regardless of whether it was NULL or not.

So I claim that your patch changes *way* more than mine does. I think
I'd prefer Hugh's over that one. I still think that right now, my
one-liner is actually the one that changes things the least (and I
don't mean in size of patch, but in behavior and logic).

                         Linus
--
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/