linux-kernel - [ 100/104] vfs,proc: guarantee unique inodes in /proc

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: <20130325010534.210656963@decadent.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:07:04 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [ 100/104] vfs,proc: guarantee unique inodes in /proc

3.2-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>

commit 51f0885e5415b4cc6535e9cdcc5145bfbc134353 upstream.

Dave Jones found another /proc issue with his Trinity tool: thanks to
the namespace model, we can have multiple /proc dentries that point to
the same inode, aliasing directories in /proc/<pid>/net/ for example.

This ends up being a total disaster, because it acts like hardlinked
directories, and causes locking problems.  We rely on the topological
sort of the inodes pointed to by dentries, and if we have aliased
directories, that odering becomes unreliable.

In short: don't do this.  Multiple dentries with the same (directory)
inode is just a bad idea, and the namespace code should never have
exposed things this way.  But we're kind of stuck with it.

This solves things by just always allocating a new inode during /proc
dentry lookup, instead of using "iget_locked()" to look up existing
inodes by superblock and number.  That actually simplies the code a bit,
at the cost of potentially doing more inode [de]allocations.

That said, the inode lookup wasn't free either (and did a lot of locking
of inodes), so it is probably not that noticeable.  We could easily keep
the old lookup model for non-directory entries, but rather than try to
be excessively clever this just implements the minimal and simplest
workaround for the problem.

Reported-and-tested-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Analyzed-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
[bwh: Backported to 3.2:
 - Adjust context
 - Never drop the pde reference in proc_get_inode(), as callers only
   expect this when we return an existing inode, and we never do that now]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
---
--- a/fs/proc/inode.c
+++ b/fs/proc/inode.c
@@ -427,12 +427,10 @@ static const struct file_operations proc

 struct inode *proc_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, struct proc_dir_entry *de)
 {
-	struct inode * inode;
+	struct inode *inode = new_inode_pseudo(sb);

-	inode = iget_locked(sb, de->low_ino);
-	if (!inode)
-		return NULL;
-	if (inode->i_state & I_NEW) {
+	if (inode) {
+		inode->i_ino = de->low_ino;
 		inode->i_mtime = inode->i_atime = inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
 		PROC_I(inode)->fd = 0;
 		PROC_I(inode)->pde = de;
@@ -461,9 +459,7 @@ struct inode *proc_get_inode(struct supe
 				inode->i_fop = de->proc_fops;
 			}
 		}
-		unlock_new_inode(inode);
-	} else
-	       pde_put(de);
+	}
 	return inode;
 }			

--
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/