linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ima: defer calling _

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: <20120322153909.GX6589@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:39:10 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	"Kasatkin, Dmitry" <dmitry.kasatkin@...el.com>
Cc:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Safford <safford@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Matt Helsley <matt.helsley@...il.com>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/12] ima: defer calling __fput()

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 05:19:09PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:53:04AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> > BTW, you've missed several other places in mm/* doing fput(), so it wouldn't
> >> > be enough to paper over your problem anyway.
> >> >
> >> > Final fput() *can* happen under mmap_sem. ??Period.
> >>
> >> I think I got that loud and clear; otherwise we wouldn't have come up
> >> with deferring the __fput(). ??We have a very real problem here - writing
> >> extended attributes requires taking the i_mutex.
> >
> > Don't do it, then? ??If you _must_ write to xattr on final fput, I'd suggest
> > starting to figure out if xattr needs its protection to be ->i_mutex - it
> > might make sense to introduce a separate mutex for xattr crap. ??Or not - I'm
> 
> "Or not" ... How to understand you?

"Or it might not make sense to go that way"
 
> > not familiar enough with the guts of xattr handling in individual filesystems
> > to tell if that would work (e.g. if it would need unpleasant changes to
> > ->setattr() instances)...

IOW, you'll need to do quite a bit of code review to tell if it's a feasible
direction or not - I can't tell without doing the same amount of RTFS; look
for the places where xattrs are modified by fs code, see how far is ->i_mutex
acquired, whether xattrs are read in the same section and whether we rely on
->i_mutex to keep the xattr values unchanged between two reads or write and
read...
--
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/