linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/7] proc: Dentry flushing without proc

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, 20 Feb 2020 14:46:25 -0600
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Security Module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "J . Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/7] proc: Dentry flushing without proc_mnt


Just because it is less of a fundamental change and less testing I went
and looked at updating proc_flush_task to use a list as Al suggested.

If we can stand an sget/deactivate_super pair for every dentry we want
to invalidate I think I have something.

Comments from anyone will be appreciated I gave this some light testing
and the code is based on something similar already present in proc so
I think there is a high chance this code is correct but I could easily
be wrong.

Linus, does this approach look like something you can stand?

Eric

Eric W. Biederman (7):
      proc: Rename in proc_inode rename sysctl_inodes sibling_inodes
      proc: Generalize proc_sys_prune_dcache into proc_prune_siblings_dcache
      proc: Mov rcu_read_(lock|unlock) in proc_prune_siblings_dcache
      proc: Use d_invalidate in proc_prune_siblings_dcache
      proc: Clear the pieces of proc_inode that proc_evict_inode cares about
      proc: Use a list of inodes to flush from proc
      proc: Ensure we see the exit of each process tid exactly once

 fs/exec.c               |   5 +--
 fs/proc/base.c          | 111 ++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
 fs/proc/inode.c         |  60 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
 fs/proc/internal.h      |   4 +-
 fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c   |  45 +++-----------------
 include/linux/pid.h     |   2 +
 include/linux/proc_fs.h |   4 +-
 kernel/exit.c           |   4 +-
 kernel/pid.c            |  16 +++++++
 9 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 127 deletions(-)