linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] loop: fput() called in loop_clr_fd() may cause bd

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:	Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:58:46 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: fput() called in loop_clr_fd() may cause bd_mutex
 recursive locking

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 01:37:45AM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Think of it for a minute - if we could run into the
> > same bdev in that recursion, what would have happened on read() from
> > that sucker? So yes, it is a false positive. 
> 
> I've tried read()/write() some time ago and it worked. Perhaps, I just
> wasn't "lucky" enough to hit any problems.

Sure - exactly because of that loop prevention logics.  *If* we really
had been able to set a loop0 -> loop1 -> loop2 -> loop0 or something of
that sort, this warning wouldn't be a false positive.  But on any
such setup, where would IO attempts end up doing?  IOW, we have to
prevent such setups anyway and not just because of problems on close() -
they would be deadly on read() and write()...
--
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/