linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 6/6] f2fs: set I_LINKABLE early to avoid wrong access by vfs

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]

Message-ID: <00ced682-9522-236d-4078-4c8f2e348d39@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Dec 2019 09:23:34 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 6/6] f2fs: set I_LINKABLE early to avoid wrong
 access by vfs

On 2019/12/11 9:21, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2019/12/10 6:23, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> This patch moves setting I_LINKABLE early in rename2(whiteout) to avoid the
>>> below warning.
>>>
>>> [ 3189.163385] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 59523 at fs/inode.c:358 inc_nlink+0x32/0x40
>>> [ 3189.246979] Call Trace:
>>> [ 3189.248707]  f2fs_init_inode_metadata+0x2d6/0x440 [f2fs]
>>> [ 3189.251399]  f2fs_add_inline_entry+0x162/0x8c0 [f2fs]
>>> [ 3189.254010]  f2fs_add_dentry+0x69/0xe0 [f2fs]
>>> [ 3189.256353]  f2fs_do_add_link+0xc5/0x100 [f2fs]
>>> [ 3189.258774]  f2fs_rename2+0xabf/0x1010 [f2fs]
>>> [ 3189.261079]  vfs_rename+0x3f8/0xaa0
>>> [ 3189.263056]  ? tomoyo_path_rename+0x44/0x60
>>> [ 3189.265283]  ? do_renameat2+0x49b/0x550
>>> [ 3189.267324]  do_renameat2+0x49b/0x550
>>> [ 3189.269316]  __x64_sys_renameat2+0x20/0x30
>>> [ 3189.271441]  do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x230
>>> [ 3189.273410]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
>>> [ 3189.275848] RIP: 0033:0x7f270b4d9a49
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/f2fs/namei.c | 27 +++++++++++++--------------
>>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/namei.c b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
>>> index a1c507b0b4ac..5d9584281935 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/namei.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
>>> @@ -797,6 +797,7 @@ static int __f2fs_tmpfile(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>>>  
>>>  	if (whiteout) {
>>>  		f2fs_i_links_write(inode, false);
>>> +		inode->i_state |= I_LINKABLE;
>>>  		*whiteout = inode;
>>>  	} else {
>>>  		d_tmpfile(dentry, inode);
>>> @@ -867,6 +868,12 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
>>>  			F2FS_I(old_dentry->d_inode)->i_projid)))
>>>  		return -EXDEV;
>>>  
>>> +	if (flags & RENAME_WHITEOUT) {
>>> +		err = f2fs_create_whiteout(old_dir, &whiteout);
>>> +		if (err)
>>> +			return err;
>>> +	}
>>
>> To record quota info correctly, we need to create whiteout inode after
>> dquot_initialize(old_dir)?
> 
> __f2fs_tmpfile() will do it.

Okay.

Any comments on below question?

> 
>>
>>> +
>>>  	err = dquot_initialize(old_dir);
>>>  	if (err)
>>>  		goto out;
>>> @@ -898,17 +905,11 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> -	if (flags & RENAME_WHITEOUT) {
>>> -		err = f2fs_create_whiteout(old_dir, &whiteout);
>>> -		if (err)
>>> -			goto out_dir;
>>> -	}
>>> -
>>>  	if (new_inode) {
>>>  
>>>  		err = -ENOTEMPTY;
>>>  		if (old_dir_entry && !f2fs_empty_dir(new_inode))
>>> -			goto out_whiteout;
>>> +			goto out_dir;
>>>  
>>>  		err = -ENOENT;
>>>  		new_entry = f2fs_find_entry(new_dir, &new_dentry->d_name,
>>> @@ -916,7 +917,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
>>>  		if (!new_entry) {
>>>  			if (IS_ERR(new_page))
>>>  				err = PTR_ERR(new_page);
>>> -			goto out_whiteout;
>>> +			goto out_dir;
>>>  		}
>>>  
>>>  		f2fs_balance_fs(sbi, true);
>>> @@ -948,7 +949,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
>>>  		err = f2fs_add_link(new_dentry, old_inode);
>>>  		if (err) {
>>>  			f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
>>> -			goto out_whiteout;
>>> +			goto out_dir;
>>>  		}
>>>  
>>>  		if (old_dir_entry)
>>> @@ -972,7 +973,7 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
>>>  				if (IS_ERR(old_page))
>>>  					err = PTR_ERR(old_page);
>>>  				f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
>>> -				goto out_whiteout;
>>> +				goto out_dir;
>>>  			}
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>> @@ -991,7 +992,6 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
>>>  	f2fs_delete_entry(old_entry, old_page, old_dir, NULL);
>>>  
>>>  	if (whiteout) {
>>> -		whiteout->i_state |= I_LINKABLE;
>>>  		set_inode_flag(whiteout, FI_INC_LINK);
>>>  		err = f2fs_add_link(old_dentry, whiteout);
>>
>> [ 3189.256353]  f2fs_do_add_link+0xc5/0x100 [f2fs]
>> [ 3189.258774]  f2fs_rename2+0xabf/0x1010 [f2fs]
>>
>> Does the call stack point here? if so, we have set I_LINKABLE before
>> f2fs_add_link(), why the warning still be triggered?

Am I missing something?

Thanks,

>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>  		if (err)
>>> @@ -1027,15 +1027,14 @@ static int f2fs_rename(struct inode *old_dir, struct dentry *old_dentry,
>>>  	f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
>>>  	if (new_page)
>>>  		f2fs_put_page(new_page, 0);
>>> -out_whiteout:
>>> -	if (whiteout)
>>> -		iput(whiteout);
>>>  out_dir:
>>>  	if (old_dir_entry)
>>>  		f2fs_put_page(old_dir_page, 0);
>>>  out_old:
>>>  	f2fs_put_page(old_page, 0);
>>>  out:
>>> +	if (whiteout)
>>> +		iput(whiteout);
>>>  	return err;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>
> .
>