linux-kernel - Re: fs/attr.c:notify_change locking warning.

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

Message-ID: <20131016181234.GA26646@infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:12:34 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: fs/attr.c:notify_change locking warning.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:26:51PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> The killpriv calls? I couldn't find anything that implemented those
> security hooks nor any documentation about it, so I'm pretty much
> clueless about it. FWIW, ocfs2 doesn't implement them, either....

The killpriv code ends up doing xattr calls for per-file capabilities
(grep security/commoncap.c for killpriv).  Seems like ocfs2 is buggy in
that regard.

I suspect the easiest way to solve it properly in XFS is to simply
retake the iolock exclusive and get the i_mutex as part of it.  This
means direct I/O writes to files with the suid bit won't scale, but I
think we can live with that given that it avoids introducing special
cases that impact more code.

--
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/