[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOMFOmWuo5W53G1-eAONgMqPRrt7HUorVk-HfpBzuddOJD=fjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:00:35 -0700
From: Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Guo Chao <yan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: prevent bdev freeing while device in use
Hi
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> To prevent use-after-free we need to hold device inode in loop_set_fd()
>> and put it later in loop_clr_fd().
>
> Is there something that guarantees that there's only one loop_set_fd()
> and one paired loop_clr_fd()?
Yes there is such guarantee.
Every time we call loop_set_fd() we check that loop_device->lo_state
is Lo_unbound and set it to Lo_bound If somebody will try to set_fd
again it will get EBUSY. And if we try to loop_clr_fd() on unbound
loop device we'll get ENXIO.
loop_set_fd/loop_clr_fd (and any other loop ioctl) is called under
loop_device->lo_ctl_mutex.
>
> IOW, what protects us from somebody doing loop_clr_fd() on a device
> that hasn't been set up yet, or doing multiple loop_set_fd calls?
> I suspect the "lo->lo_state" is part of the answer, but it's very much
> not obvious, and I'd want this to be explicitly explained.
>
> Linus
--
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