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: <20140109214239.GD29910@parisc-linux.org>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:42:39 -0700
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference in
	inode_permission()

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:27:31PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Note, the crash came from stressing the deletion and reading of debugfs
> files. I was not able to recreate this via normal files. But I'm not
> sure they are safe. It may just be that the race window is much harder
> to hit.

But "normal" files have a 'destroy_inode' method.  So you've basically
only fixed it for debugfs (and maybe a few other unusual filesystems).
Why doesn't the code look like this:

static void i_callback(struct rcu_head *head)
{
	struct inode *inode = container_of(head, struct inode, i_rcu);
	__destroy_inode(inode);
	if (inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode)
		inode->i_sb->s_op->destroy_inode(inode);
	else
		kmem_cache_free(inode_cachep, inode);
}

static void destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
{
	BUG_ON(!list_empty(&inode->i_lru));
	call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, i_callback);
}

We'd then have to get rid of all the call_rcu() invocations in individual
filesystems' destroy_inode methods, but that doesn't sound like a bad
thing to me.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ