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  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, 06 Oct 2014 21:10:25 +0200
From:	Heinrich Schuchardt <>
To:	Jan Kara <>
CC:	Alexander Viro <>,,,
	Eric Paris <>,
	John McCutchan <>,
	Robert Love <>,
	Michael Kerrisk <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fallocate: create FAN_MODIFY and IN_MODIFY events

On 06.10.2014 16:12, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 03-10-14 10:19:30, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>> The fanotify and the inotify API can used to monitor changes of the file
>> system.
>> System call fallocate modifies files. Hence it should trigger the corresponding
>> fanotify (FAN_MODIFY) and inotify (IN_MODIFY) events.
>> This patch adds the missing call to fsnotify_modify.
>    Well, there are different fallocate() commands and e.g. pure
> FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE call will not change any data in the file. I'm not sure
> how much we care but I wanted to point that out...

The most interesting case is FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE because this value 
allows to create arbitrary file content from random data. Hence I think 
we really need to create FAN_MODIFY in this case.

As the fallocate(2) man page teaches:
After a successful call, subsequent writes into the range specified by 
offset and len are guaranteed not to fail because of lack of disk space.

So calling fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, offset, len) may result in 
different outcomes of a subsequent write depending on the values of 
offset and len.

Calling fallocate for a region already zeroed will not result in any 
data change.

I would like to compare fallocate() with write().

When we call write() we always create a FAN_MODIFY event even in the 
case of overwriting with identical data.

So event FAN_MODIFY does not provide any guarantee that data was 
actually changed.

In analogy to write() I suggest to keep the logic for fallocate() as 
trivial as possible:
If fallocate() succeeds, create IN_MODIFY and FAN_MODIFY events.

Best regards

Heinrich Schuchardt
>> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <>
>> ---
>>   fs/open.c | 5 +++++
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/fs/open.c b/fs/open.c
>> index d6fd3ac..03aa8e5 100644
>> --- a/fs/open.c
>> +++ b/fs/open.c
>> @@ -295,6 +295,11 @@ int do_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
>>   	sb_start_write(inode->i_sb);
>>   	ret = file->f_op->fallocate(file, mode, offset, len);
>> +
>> +	/* Create inotify and fanotify events. */
>> +	if (ret == 0)
>> +		fsnotify_modify(file);
>> +
>>   	sb_end_write(inode->i_sb);
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>> --
>> 2.1.0

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists