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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPa8GCB7UGe0xr_pagbAJQAXn1t03m_8sraYxpkdbY1F3o7GRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 May 2012 13:10:04 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.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 2 May 2012 13:04, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> 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).

Yes of course, I forgot that was exported too.

>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.

Yep, thanks 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/