linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write

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: <17d76cf59ee.12f4517f122167.2687299278423224602@mykernel.net>
Date:   Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:24:00 +0800
From:   Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
To:     "Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>, "Amir Goldstein" <amir73il@...il.com>,
        "Miklos Szeredi" <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     "linux-fsdevel" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "overlayfs" <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ronyjin" <ronyjin@...cent.com>,
        "charliecgxu" <charliecgxu@...cent.com>,
        "Vivek Goyal" <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 06/10] ovl: implement overlayfs' ->write_inode
 operation

 ---- 在 星期三, 2021-12-01 21:46:10 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> 撰写 ----
 > On Wed 01-12-21 09:19:17, Amir Goldstein wrote:
 > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 8:31 AM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net> wrote:
 > > > So the final solution to handle all the concerns looks like accurately
 > > > mark overlay inode diry on modification and re-mark dirty only for
 > > > mmaped file in ->write_inode().
 > > >
 > > > Hi Miklos, Jan
 > > >
 > > > Will you agree with new proposal above?
 > > >
 > > 
 > > Maybe you can still pull off a simpler version by remarking dirty only
 > > writably mmapped upper AND inode_is_open_for_write(upper)?
 > 
 > Well, if inode is writeably mapped, it must be also open for write, doesn't
 > it? The VMA of the mapping will hold file open. So remarking overlay inode
 > dirty during writeback while inode_is_open_for_write(upper) looks like
 > reasonably easy and presumably there won't be that many inodes open for
 > writing for this to become big overhead?
 > 
 > > If I am not mistaken, if you always mark overlay inode dirty on ovl_flush()
 > > of FMODE_WRITE file, there is nothing that can make upper inode dirty
 > > after last close (if upper is not mmaped), so one more inode sync should
 > > be enough. No?
 > 
 > But we still need to catch other dirtying events like timestamp updates,
 > truncate(2) etc. to mark overlay inode dirty. Not sure how reliably that
 > can be done...
 > 

To be honest I even don't fully understand what's the ->flush() logic in overlayfs.
Why should we open new underlying file when calling ->flush()?
Is it still correct in the case of opening lower layer first then copy-uped case? 


Thanks,
Chengguang