linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] freeing unlinked file indefinitely delayed

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:	Sun, 12 Jul 2015 16:00:35 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Ben Myers <bpm@....com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] freeing unlinked file indefinitely delayed

On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 10:41:43AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:

> The bug rings a bell for me so I will stick my neck out instead of
> lurking.  Don't you need to sample that link count under the filesystems
> internal lock in order to avoid an unlink/iget race?  I suggest creating
> a helper to prune disconnected dentries which a filesystem could call in
> .unlink.  That would avoid the risk of unintended side effects with the
> d_alloc/d_free/icache approach and have provable link count correctness.

For one thing, this patch does *not* check for i_nlink at all.  For another,
there's no such thing as 'filesystems internal lock' for i_nlink protection -
that's handled by i_mutex...  And what does iget() have to do with any of that?
--
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/