linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] kernfs: use VFS negative dentry caching

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:   Fri, 09 Apr 2021 16:26:47 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
        Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>,
        Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] kernfs: use VFS negative dentry caching

On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 01:35 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 09:15:06AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > +		parent = kernfs_dentry_node(dentry->d_parent);
> > +		if (parent) {
> > +			const void *ns = NULL;
> > +
> > +			if (kernfs_ns_enabled(parent))
> > +				ns = kernfs_info(dentry->d_parent-
> > >d_sb)->ns;
> 
> 	For any dentry d, we have d->d_parent->d_sb == d->d_sb.  All
> the time.
> If you ever run into the case where that would not be true, you've
> found
> a critical bug.

Right, yes.

> 
> > +			kn = kernfs_find_ns(parent, dentry-
> > >d_name.name, ns);
> > +			if (kn)
> > +				goto out_bad;
> > +		}
> 
> Umm...  What's to prevent a race with successful rename(2)?  IOW,
> what's
> there to stabilize ->d_parent and ->d_name while we are in that
> function?

Indeed, glad you looked at this.

Now I'm wondering how kerfs_iop_rename() protects itself from
concurrent kernfs_rename_ns() ...