linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix O_TMPFILE corner case in ubifs

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:   Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:51:27 +0200
From:   Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
        "stable [v4.9]" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ralph Sennhauser <ralph.sennhauser@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ubifs: Fix O_TMPFILE corner case in ubifs_link()

Amir,

Am 30.03.2017 um 12:35 schrieb Amir Goldstein:
>> Reading deeper into the proved that I was wrong.
>> AFAIKT UBIFS' journal has currently no way to revive a deleted inode.
>> So, we have to think about a new solution.
>>
> 
> Not that I know anything about ubifs, but why do you need the deleted
> inode record in the first place for an O_TMPFILE.
> vfs ensures you that you can only link back an O_TMPFILE, not a deleted
> inode.
> 
> It does not appear to be the right thing to do to pass deletion=1 to
> ubifs_jnl_update(), but deletion=0 doesn't look right as well..

We need to think of a new case.
I choose deletion=1 to ensure that after a power-cut written data of the
tmpfile gets removed.

Thanks,
//richard