linux-kernel - Re: fs/namei.c: Make status likely to be ECHILD in lookup

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: <20201209203500.GQ3579531@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 20:35:00 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fs/namei.c: Make status likely to be ECHILD in lookup_fast()

On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:24:03PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From:  Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> 
> Running my yearly branch profiling code, it detected a 100% wrong branch
> condition in name.c for lookup_fast(). The code in question has:
> 
> 		status = d_revalidate(dentry, nd->flags);
> 		if (likely(status > 0))
> 			return dentry;
> 		if (unlazy_child(nd, dentry, seq))
> 			return ERR_PTR(-ECHILD);
> 		if (unlikely(status == -ECHILD))
> 			/* we'd been told to redo it in non-rcu mode */
> 			status = d_revalidate(dentry, nd->flags);
> 
> If the status of the d_revalidate() is greater than zero, then the function
> finishes. Otherwise, if it is an "unlazy_child" it returns with -ECHILD.
> After the above two checks, the status is compared to -ECHILD, as that is
> what is returned if the original d_revalidate() needed to be done in a
> non-rcu mode.
> 
> Especially this path is called in a condition of:
> 
> 	if (nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU) {
> 
> And most of the d_revalidate() functions have:
> 
> 	if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU)
> 		return -ECHILD;

Umm...  That depends upon the filesystem mix involved; said that, I'd rather
drop that "unlikely"...