linux-kernel - Re: fs/namei.c: Misuse of sequence counts?

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:	Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:01:42 -0500
From:	Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fs/namei.c: Misuse of sequence counts?

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 01:12:59AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> Huh?  What's to guarantee that dentry hasn't become negative since the
> moment we'd fetched the seqcount?  _That_ is the problem we are dealing
> with here - link_path_walk() relies on nd->inode being non-NULL.

Hmm, I guess that makes sense.  So the code is actually verifying that the inode
is still the inode that was referenced from the current or root directory when
nd->path was set.  But couldn't the problem also be solved by setting nd->inode
directly in the fs->seq retry loops?  (The file descriptor case could be
'nd->inode = file_inode(f.file);'.)  Then there would be no need for the extra
read_seqcount_retry() just for the inode.  The patch you posted looks correct,
but I wonder if this approach would be better.
--
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/