linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] VFS: close race between getcwd() and d

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, 9 Nov 2017 12:23:19 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] VFS: close race between getcwd() and d_move()

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 7:22 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com> wrote:
> d_move() will call __d_drop() and then __d_rehash()
> on the dentry being moved.  This creates a small window
> when the dentry appears to be unhashed.  Many tests
> of d_unhashed() are made under ->d_lock and so are safe
> from racing with this window, but some aren't.
> In particular, getcwd() calls d_unlinked() (which calls
> d_unhashed()) without d_lock protection, so it can race.

Hmm.

I see what you're doing, but I don't necessarily agree.

I would actually almost prefer that we simply change __d_move() itself.

The problem is that __d_move() really wants to move the hashes things
atomically, but instead of doing that it does a "unhash and then
rehash".

How nasty would it be to just expand the calls to __d_drop/__d_rehash
into __d_move itself, and take both has list locks at the same time
(with the usual ordering and checking if it's the same list, of
course).

                     Linus