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, 11 Apr 2019 09:22:56 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Kirill Smelkov <>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <>,
        Al Viro <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>, Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs: stream_open - opener for stream-like files so
 that read and write can run simultaneously without deadlock

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:38 AM Kirill Smelkov <> wrote:
> However file->f_pos writing is still there and it will bug under race
> detector, e.g. under KTSAN because read and write can be running
> simultaneously. Maybe it is not only race bug, but also a bit of
> slowdown as read and write code paths write to the same memory thus
> needing inter-cpu synchronization if read and write handlers are on
> different cpus. However for this I'm not sure.

I doubt it's noticeable, but it would probably be good to simply not
do the write for streams.

That *could* be done somewhat similarly, with just changing th address
to be updated, or course.

In fact, we *used* to (long ago) pass in the address of "file->f_pos"
itself to the low-level read/write routines. We then changed it to do
that indirection through a local copy of pos (and
file_pos_read/file_pos_write) because we didn't do the proper locking,
so different read/write versions could mess with each other (and with

But one of the things that commit 9c225f2655e36 ("vfs: atomic f_pos
accesses as per POSIX") did was to add the proper locking at least for
the cases that we care about deeply, so we *could* say that we have
three cases:

 - FMODE_ATOMIC_POS: properly locked,
 - FMODE_STREAM: no pos at all
 - otherwise a "mostly don't care - don't mix!"

and so we could go back to not copying the pos at all, and instead do
something like

        loff_t *ppos = f.file->f_mode & FMODE_STREAM ? NULL : &file->f_pos;
        ret = vfs_write(f.file, buf, count, ppos);

and perhaps have a long-term plan to try to get rid of the "don't mix"
case entirely (ie "if you use f_pos, then we'll do the proper

(The above is obviously surrounded by the fdget_pos()/fdput_pos() that
implements the locking decision).


Powered by blists - more mailing lists