[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXtJBDqkvO3mHxDrHL3whCWX_B-LAXOnue7r90nyyWY_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:43:05 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"security@...nel.org" <security@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: Tighten up linkat(..., AT_EMPTY_PATH)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> Can't really comment the patch, just a nit:
>
> On 08/21, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> +static bool may_flink(const struct path *path)
>> +{
>> + bool ret;
>> + struct inode *inode = path->dentry->d_inode;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * This is racy: I_LINKABLE could be cleared between this check
>> + * and the actual link operation.
>
> OK,
>
>> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
>> + ret = !!(inode->i_state & I_LINKABLE);
>> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>
> so why do we need to take a lock ?
>
We probably don't. But other accesses to this field take that lock,
so it seemed safer.
(In principle, someone could take the lock, write I_LINKABLE, clear
it, and unlock, and we'd get confused if we didn't take the lock
ourselves.)
> Oleg.
>
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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