linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Describe race of direct read and fork for unaligned buffers

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:	Tue, 1 May 2012 20:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
cc:	mtk.manpages@...il.com,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-man@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, mgorman@...e.de,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Describe race of direct read and fork for unaligned
 buffers

On Wed, 2 May 2012, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On 2 May 2012 03:56, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the light of all of the comments, can someone revise the man-pages
> > patch that Jan sent?
> 
> This does not quite describe the entire situation, but something understandable
> to developers:
> 
> O_DIRECT IOs should never be run concurrently with fork(2) system call,
> when the memory buffer is anonymous memory, or comes from mmap(2)
> with MAP_PRIVATE.
> 
> Any such IOs, whether submitted with asynchronous IO interface or from
> another thread in the process, should be quiesced before fork(2) is called.
> Failure to do so can result in data corruption and undefined behavior in
> parent and child processes.
> 
> This restriction does not apply when the memory buffer for the O_DIRECT
> IOs comes from mmap(2) with MAP_SHARED or from shmat(2).

Nor does this restriction apply when the memory buffer has been advised
as MADV_DONTFORK with madvise(2), ensuring that it will not be available
to the child after fork(2).

> 
> 
> 
> Is that on the right track? I feel it might be necessary to describe this
> allowance for MAP_SHARED, because some databases may be doing
> such things, and anyway it gives apps a potential way to make this work
> if concurrent fork + DIO is very important.

Looks good, but we do need a reference to MADV_DONTFORK, perhaps as above.

Hugh
--
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/