linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/9p: fix setattr/getattr issues with open 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]

Message-ID: <20160707153434.1117e8a3@bahia.lan>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:34:34 +0200
From:	Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>
To:	Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@....fr>
Cc:	Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
	Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	<v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	Ron Minnich <rminnich@...dia.gov>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] fs/9p: fix setattr/getattr issues with open files

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:35:40 +0200
Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@....fr> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
> 

Hi Dominique,

> Greg Kurz wrote on Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 05:08:49PM +0200:
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:16:55 +0200
> > Dominique Martinet <dominique.martinet@....fr> wrote:
> >   
> > > I *think* this introduces a race somewhere, I'm getting errors like:
> > > cat: f.05: No such file or directory
> > > cat: f.14: No such file or directory
> > > cat: f.13: No such file or directory
> > > cat: f.39: No such file or directory
> > > cat: f.05: No such file or directory
> > > 
> > > 
> > > when doing:
> > >    for file in {01..50}; do touch f.${file}; done
> > >    seq 1 1000 | xargs -n 1 -P 25 -I{} cat f.* > /dev/null  
> 
> Ok so, tested with the first two patches and I can't seem to hit any
> problem with the qemu server at least (I'd need more time to fix
> ganesha's 9p tcp/rdma server before I could blame the client in any way)
> 

I'm not surprised: patch 1 simply adds a "fallback" lookup to the existing code,
and patch 2 changes this "fallback" lookup only.

Bad things can come with patch 3 because it really changes the lookup logic.

> 
> The last patch looks good to me, I think it only makes an existing race
> more visible... What I think could happen is:
>  process 1 has file open
>  process 2 tries to open file, sees fid open
>  process 1 closes file/clunk fids
>  process 2 tries to clone now-clunked fid and gets ENOENT
> 

I'll try to have a look with this scenario in mind.

> 
> I'm afraid I just found out my hypervisor is no longer recent enough for
> gdb kernel scripts (gdb 7.6 and python 2.7.5 in el7 compared to the
> apparently required 7.7 and 2.7.6 respectively...), and I don't see
> anything obvious with just debug messages/adding a few printks (wasn't
> able to confirm where exactly that ENOENT comes from or if my theory is
> even close to the truth)
> 
> I'd like to spend more time on it but don't think I'll be able to for a
> couple of weeks ; sorry about that.
> 

No problem. My plate is full anyway until I go into a 1-month vacation,
starting end of July. And I'm currently targeting QEMU 2.8 for the
server side fixes: we have plenty of time to fix this.

> 
> Were you able to reproduce the problem?
> 

Yes ! I get it every time :)

> Thanks,

I really appreciate your assistance since v9fs-devel is really quiet these
days.

Cheers.

--
Greg