[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1359119883.2496.156.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:18:03 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
To: Lingzhu Xiang <lxiang@...hat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] efivars write(2) races
On Fri, 2013-01-25 at 11:50 +0800, Lingzhu Xiang wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 08:25 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> > 1) process A does write() on efivars file, reaches ->get_variable(),
> > gets newdatasize set, drops efivars->lock and loses CPU before an attempt to
> > grab ->i_mutex. process B comes and does the same thing, replacing the
> > variable contents. Then it grabs ->i_mutex, updates size, drops ->i_mutex
> > and buggers off. At which point A gets CPU back and proceeds to set size
> > to whatever would be valid for its write. Only the value is bogus now...
>
> There are a few other things that makes size bogus now.
>
> 1. truncate() never touches nvram but pretends to be changing size.
Good catch. Looks like we need to provide an implementation for this.
> 2. Empty files come back with non-zero size after remount. They are imported
> from sysfs when mounting.
Eeek. The return value of get_variable() isn't checked in
efivarfs_fill_super().
> 3. Arguably reading empty files could just return empty instead of returning
> EIO/EFI_NOT_FOUND from firmware.
Yeah, I think Jeremy has a patch to fix this.
> 4. EFI_VARIABLE_APPEND_WRITE with EFI_OUT_OF_RESOURCES truncates size but you
> can still read its content.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you please explain?
Thanks for the feedback.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists