linux-kernel - Re: fs: lockup on rename

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: <20141026035705.GP7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 26 Oct 2014 03:57:05 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: fs: lockup on rename_mutex in fs/dcache.c:1035

[context for Linus]

Fuzzer has triggered deadlock in d_walk() with rename_lock taken twice.
AFAICS, the plausible scenario is
                         (child->d_flags & DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED) ||
triggering while ascending to parent, on the pass with rename_lock already
held exclusive.  In that case we go to rename_retry and either return without
unlocking rename_lock, or try to take in exclusive one more time, again
without unlocking it first.

> Hmm...  Actually, the comment in there is simply wrong - if the child
> got killed between unlocking the child and locking the parent, it's
> not ascending to the wrong parent, it's having no way to find the next
> sibling.
> 
> OK, so basically it came from Nick's "fs: dcache avoid starvation in dcache
> multi-step operations" and mistake was in the assumption that once we
> hold rename_lock, nothing is going to need rename_retry.  Which isn't
> true - dentry_kill() on child while we are trying to get ->d_lock on
> parent requires a restart and that isn't excluded by rename_lock at
> all.
> 
> Well, brute-force fix would be this, but I wonder if it's going to
> create livelocks...
> 
> diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> index 3ffef7f..e3d8499 100644
> --- a/fs/dcache.c
> +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> @@ -1118,6 +1118,7 @@ out_unlock:
>  	return;
>  
>  rename_retry:
> +	done_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq);
>  	if (!retry)
>  		return;
>  	seq = 1;
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/