linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: fix a data race in i_size_write/i_size

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: <20200219120843.GU2902@twin.jikos.cz>
Date:   Wed, 19 Feb 2020 13:08:43 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
        darrick.wong@...cle.com, elver@...gle.com,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: fix a data race in i_size_write/i_size_read

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 11:04:26PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote:
> inode::i_size could be accessed concurently as noticed by KCSAN,
> 
>  BUG: KCSAN: data-race in iomap_do_writepage / iomap_write_end
> 
> The write is protected by exclusive inode::i_rwsem (in
> xfs_file_buffered_aio_write()) but the read is not. A shattered value
> could introduce a logic bug. Fixed it using a pair of WRITE/READ_ONCE().

We had a different problem with lack of READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE for i_size,
the fix was the same though. There was i_size_read(inode) used in max()
macro and compiled code two reads (unlocked), and this led to a race
when where different value was checked and then used.

The thread:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20191011202050.8656-1-josef@toxicpanda.com/

We had to apply a workaround to btrfs code because the generic fix was
not merged, even with several reviews and fixing a real bug. The report
from KCSAN seems to require some sort of splitting the values. What we
saw happened on 64bit platform without that effect so I'd call that a
more likely to happen because the pattern max(i_size_read(inode), ...) is
not something we'd instinctively consider unsafe.