linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/4] fs: fcntl/fadvice fixes v2

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1413645688-13524-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@openvz.org>
Date:	Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:21:24 +0400
From:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	hch@...radead.org, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] fs: fcntl/fadvice fixes v2

fcntl(F_SETFL) and fadvise performs direct manipulation with file's internals.
w/o notifying to fs layer. This behavior be not be suitable for some filesystems
(mostly stack-fs like ecryptfs, unionfs, etc). Let's introduce new ->set_flags()
callback for that purpose. This callback is responsible for flags check so
->check_flags() no longer required.

TOC:
 fs: fcntl add set_flags wrapper -v2
 fs: add fadvise file_operation
 ecryptfs: add fadvise/set_flags calbacks
 cifs: add set_flag callback

*OPEN ISSUE REMAINS*
This series does not fix all issues related with set_flags.
Race between fcntl(toggling O_DIRECT) vs write() is still possible
Usually O_DIRECT checked twice during call chain:
 ->xxx_file_write_iter
 --->__generic_file_write_iter
So we may end-up up with two different values. Some filesystems (btrfs/xfs)
avoid this issue by copy-pasting __generic_file_write_iter.
One of possible way to fix this issue it to save flags in kiocb->ki_flags
as we already do with ->ki_pos. And fixup all places accordingly.
I've calculated numbers of direct access to ->f_flags it is close to 150,
half of that number is ->open() methods. So patch would not be gigantic.
And finally here is my question to AlViro and Christoph and other VFS-people:
*Are you agree with that approach?* Please say your word.
--
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/