linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: fix posix ACL hooks

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]

Date:	Mon, 3 Feb 2014 22:40:35 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>,
	Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Guangliang Zhao <lucienchao@...il.com>,
	Li Wang <li.wang@...ntykylin.com>, zheng.z.yan@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ceph: fix posix ACL hooks

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 02:12:00PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> >> -int afs_permission(struct inode *inode, int mask)
> >> +int afs_permission(struct dentry *dentry, struct inode *inode, int mask)
> >
> > Oh, _lovely_.  So not only do we pass dentry, the arguments are redundant
> > as well.
> 
> Note that *not* passing in inode would make the patch much bigger,
> because now every filesystem would have to add the
> 
>        struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode;
> 
> at the top.
> 
> Also, I'm not actually convinced it is redundant at all. Remember the
> RCU lookup case? dentry->d_inode is not safe.

Umm...  Point, but that actually means that we get an extra pitfall for
filesystem writers here.  foo_permission() passes dentry (now that it
has one) to foo_wank_a_lot(), with the latter using dentry->d_inode at
some point...

> >> +static int gfs2_vfs_permission(struct dentry *dentry, struct inode *inode, int mask)
> >> +{
> >> +     return gfs2_permission(inode, mask);
> >> +}
> >
> > Er...  You do realize that callers of gfs2_permission() tend to have
> > the dentry in question, either directly or as ->d_parent of something
> > they have?
> 
> Not true. Look closer.
> 
> Look at gfs2_lookupi() in particular, and check how it is called.

Yeowch...  gfs2_ok_to_move() is particulary nasty...  WTF do we need
it for and why is it not racy as hell?
--
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/