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]

Message-ID: <20110719234550.GR11013@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:45:51 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:42:51PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > __d_lookup_rcu() is being careful about *inode, yes.
> >
> > But I'd forgotten it was even setting it: doesn't that setting get
> > overridden later by the more careless *inode = path->d_entry->d_inode
> > at the head of __follow_mount_rcu()'s loop?
> >
> > Perhaps that line just needs to be moved to the tail of the loop?
> 
> Ahh. Bingo. Yes, I think you found it.
> 
> I don't think it should touch that *inode value in
> __follow_mount_rcu() unless we actually followed a mount, exactly
> because it will overwrite the thing that we were so careful about in
> __d_lookup_rcu().
> 
> So how about this patch that replaces the earlier mount-point sequence
> number one. The only difference is (as you mention) to just do the
> *inode update at the end of the loop, so that we don't overwrite the
> valid inode data with a non-checked one when we don't do anything.
> 
> Untested. But this should make my propised change to fs/dcache.c be
> irrelevant, because whether we clear d_inode or not, the existing
> sequence number checks will catch it. Agreed?

You know what...  I doubt that you want to mess with ->d_seq checks here.
It's definitely not Hugh's bug (unless he has bindings somewhere odd) and
both ->mnt_mountpoint and ->mnt_root are pinned (and we are holding
vfsmount_lock anyway).  *inode assignment too early is a real bug, indeed,
and we want to assign nd->seq if we cross mountpoint as both versions do,
but check just before that is, in the best case, BUG_ON() fodder.  We'd
just found a vfsmount with ->mnt_mountpoint equal to path->dentry; it *can't*
be stale, or we have a really nasty problem anyway.
--
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/