linux-kernel - Re: Can ovl_drop_write() be called earlier in ovl_dentry

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, 01 Jun 2015 16:45:03 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	dhowells@...hat.com, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Can ovl_drop_write() be called earlier in ovl_dentry_open()

Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:

> > In ovl_dentry_open(), ovl_drop_write() is called after vfs_open() - but is
> > this actually necessary?  Can't we just drop it post-copyup?  After all,
> > that's all we wanted the write lock for, right?
> 
> Hmm,  that could result in a race where remount r/o of upper fs comes
> in between copy-up and vfs_open() so copy-up succeeds but the actual
> open fails.  It's harmless, though, and not  very likely.  So I guess
> your patch is OK.

That race is there anyway if there's no copy up, right?

David
--
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/