linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] fs: introduce helper d_path

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: <CAHk-=wih_O+0xG4QbLw-3XJ71Yh43_SFm3gp9swj8knzXoceZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 8 May 2021 19:53:26 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Jia He <justin.he@....com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] fs: introduce helper d_path_fast()

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 7:28 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
>         Re READ_ONCE() - we are wrapped into
> read_seqbegin_or_lock(&rename_lock, &seq) there, so it's more about
> being explicit than about correctness considerations.

Well, part of this all is that the next step is that "vsnprintf()"
with '%pD' would basically use prepend_entries() with just the RCU
lock.

That said, even with the rename lock, that will only cause a retry on
rename - it won't necessarily fix any confusion that comes from the
compiler possibly silently re-loading 'parent' multiple times, and
getting different pointers due to a concurrent rename.

Now, those different results should all be individually ok, due to RCU
freeing, but it's _really_ confusing if 'parent' might be two
different things within the same iteration of the loop.

I don't see anything truly horrible that would happen - mainly "we'll
prefetch one parent, and then due to reloading the pointer we might
actually _use_ another parent entirely for the next iteration", but it
really is best to avoid that kind of confusion.

                Linus