linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: make sure link path does not go away at access

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:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:12:13 +0100
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>, xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: make sure link path does not go away at access

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 04:01, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:

> I *think* that just zeroing the buffer means the race condition
> means the link resolves as either wholly intact, partially zeroed
> with trailing zeros in the length, wholly zeroed or zero length.
> Nothing will crash, the link string is always null terminated even
> if the length is wrong, and so nothing bad should happen as a result
> of zeroing the symlink buffer when it gets evicted from the VFS
> inode cache after unlink.

That's my thinking.  However, modifying the buffer while it is being
processed does seem pretty ugly, and I have to admit that I don't
understand why this needs to be done in either XFS or EXT4.

> The root cause is "allowing an inode to be reused without waiting
> for an RCU grace period to expire". This might seem pedantic, but
> "without waiting for an rcu grace period to expire" is the important
> part of the problem (i.e. the bug), not the "allowing an inode to be
> reused" bit.

Yes.

Thanks,
Miklos