linux-kernel - Re: security: lockless stat() issues

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131004211526.GR13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Fri, 4 Oct 2013 22:15:26 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: security: lockless stat() issues

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:49:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That would get ugly.
> 
> However, I don't think we actually really need to do that.  We had a
> similar situation with d_revalidate() passing inode pointers etc
> totally unnecessarily. Yes, the filesystem needs to use ACCESS_ONCE()
> and care about NULL, but it doesn't need anything more than that. And
> we really do have that already.

Not for ->getattr()...  BTW, ->permission() for btrfs in that series
relies on not getting a MAY_WRITE | MAY_NOT_BLOCK combination, and
if you are serious about access(2), we'll need to lazy-delay freeing
struct btrfs_root.  Besides, we'll need to audit all ->permission()
instances for places that do not check for MAY_NOT_BLOCK on such
branches...

> And we already have dentry->d_sb - which is supposed to be valid.
> Again, we already use it under RCU for d_revalidate() and for name
> hashing. So the super-block had better already be ok with RCU.

Umm...  Right you are, so we really need to make freeing these suckers
delayed.  Fixed and pushed.  BTW, I wonder how much does removal of
s_files (next-to-last commit in #experimental) affect scalability on
open/close...  Anybody with perf setup and reasonable amount of
previous data?

BTW^2: what's the FM2R for perf testing of that kind?  E.g. how much
is testable under KVM, etc.?
--
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/