linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] ubifs: Use 64bit readdir cookies

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: <224abf2f-c820-5df1-6292-42c1e2d47933@nod.at>
Date:   Thu, 29 Dec 2016 17:36:35 +0100
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:     linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, david@...ma-star.at, tytso@....edu,
        dedekind1@...il.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ubifs: Use 64bit readdir cookies

Bruce,

On 29.12.2016 17:15, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 04:49:54PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Bruce,
>>
>> On 29.12.2016 16:34, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>>> That way UBIFS can provide a 64bit readdir() cookie which is required for NFS3.
>>>
>>> Sounds good.  And if a matching entry isn't found (as in the case of a
>>> concurrent unlink), what happens?  The answer must be the same as for
>>> ext4, but I've forgotten the details....  I guess it must find the next
>>> highest cookie (thinking of the cookie as a 64-bit integer of some kind)
>>> that exists in the directory.  And that must be the same order that
>>> readdir normally returns entries in.
>>
>> If a 64bit cookie is not found, the lookup function returns -ENOENT.
>> In UBIFS we cannot just select a higher or lower key (cookie in this case),
>> since it is the B-tree key and would point to a completely different
>> entry.
>>
>> So, in case of a concurrent unlink() one would succeed and one fail with
>> -ENOENT. Unless I miss something that seems okay to me.
> 
> Unlink takes (parent directory, name), not a directory cookie.
> 
> The problem is concurrent unlink and nfs readdir.  So:
> 
> 	NFS server returns readdir result with cookie X
> 
> 	Somebody unlinks the entry at X.
> 
> 	NFS server gets readdir request with cookie X.
> 
> Then the NFS client will get a spurious -ENOENT.

Ah yes. Sorry I misunderstood your question.
UBIFS readdir() address this already, if you ask it to readdir()
from pos X and X is not present it will jump to the next best entry X'.
UBIFS does so since ever.

Thanks,
//richard