linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: add missing mutex lock arround notify

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: <20111217221028.GZ2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:10:28 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: add missing mutex lock arround notify_change

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 09:41:37PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

> xfs and ext4_ioctl() need to be fixed; XFS fix follows, ext4 I'd rather left
> to ext4 folks - I don't know how wide an area needs i_mutex there

Oh, for fsck sake...  People, this is *obviously* broken - if nothing else,
removing suid after modifying the file contents is too late.  Moreover,
this mext_inode_double_lock() thing is asking for trouble; it's deadlock-free
only because nothing else takes i_mutex on more than one non-directory inode
and does that as the innermost lock.  Start calling it for directories
(or have somebody cut'n'paste it and use it for directories) and you've got
a nice, shiny deadlock...  BTW, is ordering really needed in
double_down_write_data_sem()?  IOW, can we get contention between several
callers of that thing?

>From my reading of that code, all call chains leading to this sucker
are guaranteed to already hold i_mutex on both inodes.  If that is true,
we don't need any ordering in double_down_write_data_sem() at all...

AFAICS, the minimal fix is to move file_remove_suid() call into
ext4_move_extents(), just after we have acquired i_mutex in there.
Moreover, I think it should be done to *both* files, since both have
contents modified.  And I see no point in making that conditional...
--
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/