linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.0 59/66] fs: stream_open - opener for stream-like files so that read and write can run simultaneously without deadlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20190426182014.GA23128@deco.navytux.spb.ru>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:20:24 +0000
From:   Kirill Smelkov <kirr@...edi.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Yongzhi Pan <panyongzhi@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
        Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@...h.org>,
        Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@...gle.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.0 59/66] fs: stream_open - opener for stream-like files so that read and write can run simultaneously without deadlock

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:00:01AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Kirill Smelkov
> > Sent: 26 April 2019 08:46
> ...
> > I'm not sure I understand your comment completely, but we convert to
> > stream_open only drivers that actually do _not_ use position at all, and
> > that were already using nonseekable_open, thus pread and pwrite were
> > already returning -ESPIPE for them (nonseekable_open clears
> > FMODE_{PREAD,PWRITE} and ksys_{pread,pwrite}64 check for that flag). We
> > also convert only drivers that use no_llseek for .llseek, so lseek
> > on those files is/was always returning -ESPIPE as well.
> > 
> > If a driver uses position in its read and write and has support for
> > pread/pwrite (FMODE_PREAD and FMODE_PWRITE), pread and pwrite are
> > already working _without_ file->f_pos locking - because those system
> > calls do not semantically update file->f_pos at all and thus do not take
> > file->f_pos_lock - i.e. pread/pwrite can be run simultaneously already.
> 
> Looks like I knew that once :-)
> Mind you, 'man pread' on my system is somewhat uninformative.
> 
> Maybe pread() should always be allowed at offset 0.
> Then you wouldn't need all this extra logic.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you propose any change? If yes - what is
the change you are proposing?


> > If libc implements pread as lseek+read it will work for a single
> > user case  (single thread, or fd not shared between processes), but it
> > will break because of lseek+read non-atomicity if multiple preads are
> > simultaneously used from several threads. And also for such emulation
> > for multiple users case there is a chance for pread vs pwrite deadlock,
> > since those system calls are using read and write and read and write
> > take file->f_pos_lock.
> 
> I'd actually rather the pread() failed to compile.

Ok.

> The actual implementation did 3 lseek()s (to save and restore the offset).
> A user level emulation could usually get away with one lseek().