linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.19.y-ckt 18/86] btrfs: skip waiting on ordered range for special files

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:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:29:18 -0700
From:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc:	Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>, Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.19.y-ckt 18/86] btrfs: skip waiting on ordered range for special files

3.19.8-ckt9 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>

commit a30e577c96f59b1e1678ea5462432b09bf7d5cbc upstream.

In btrfs_evict_inode, we properly truncate the page cache for evicted
inodes but then we call btrfs_wait_ordered_range for every inode as well.
It's the right thing to do for regular files but results in incorrect
behavior for device inodes for block devices.

filemap_fdatawrite_range gets called with inode->i_mapping which gets
resolved to the block device inode before getting passed to
wbc_attach_fdatawrite_inode and ultimately to inode_to_bdi.  What happens
next depends on whether there's an open file handle associated with the
inode.  If there is, we write to the block device, which is unexpected
behavior.  If there isn't, we through normally and inode->i_data is used.
We can also end up racing against open/close which can result in crashes
when i_mapping points to a block device inode that has been closed.

Since there can't be any page cache associated with special file inodes,
it's safe to skip the btrfs_wait_ordered_range call entirely and avoid
the problem.

Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100911
Tested-by: Christoph Biedl <linux-kernel.bfrz@...chmal.in-ulm.de>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 35911f0..fbcd590 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -4854,7 +4854,8 @@ void btrfs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
 		goto no_delete;
 	}
 	/* do we really want it for ->i_nlink > 0 and zero btrfs_root_refs? */
-	btrfs_wait_ordered_range(inode, 0, (u64)-1);
+	if (!special_file(inode->i_mode))
+		btrfs_wait_ordered_range(inode, 0, (u64)-1);

 	btrfs_free_io_failure_record(inode, 0, (u64)-1);

-- 
1.9.1

--
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/