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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:46:10 +0200 From: Tuomas Tynkkynen <tuomas@...era.com> To: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> CC: <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>, <v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <stable@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/9p: Compare qid.path in v9fs_test_inode On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 02:06:29 +0200 Tuomas Tynkkynen <tuomas@...era.com> wrote: > Commit fd2421f54423 ("fs/9p: When doing inode lookup compare qid details > and inode mode bits.") transformed v9fs_qid_iget() to use iget5_locked() > instead of iget_locked(). However, the test() callback is not checking > fid.path at all, which means that a lookup in the inode cache can now > accidentally locate a completely wrong inode from the same inode hash > bucket if the other fields (qid.type and qid.version) match. > Al, does this sound sensible? (or if there is someone else picking up 9p patches, let me know). Thanks! - Tuomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists