linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fs: rename S_KERNEL

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: <922909.1643369759@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jan 2022 11:35:59 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: rename S_KERNEL_FILE

Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:

> Good idea, but then the helpers to set the flag should not be internal
> to cachefiles and the locking semantics should be clear.

I could move them out, at least partially.  They do log some information
that's private to cachefiles through the tracepoint, but it's just one number
and could be passed in as a parameter.  I could move the tracepoint to
somewhere more generic.

> FYI, overlayfs already takes an "exclusive lock" on upper/work dir
> among all ovl instances.
> 
> How do you feel about hoisting ovl_inuse_* helpers to fs.h
> and rename s/I_OVL_INUSE/I_EXCL_INUSE?

Fine by me.  Sharing a cache with or through an overlay would make for very
fun coherency management.

> Whether deny rmdir should have its own flag or not I don't know,
> but from ovl POV I *think* it should not be a problem to deny rmdir
> for the ovl upper/work dirs as long as ovl is mounted(?).

What's the consequence of someone rearranging the directories directly in the
contributing dirs whilst there's an overlay over them?

> Another problem with generic deny of rmdir is that users getting
> EBUSY have no way to figure out the reason.
> At least for a specific subsystem (i.e. cachefiles) users should be able
> to check if the denied dir is in the subsystem's inventory(?)

I could add a tracepoint for that.  It could form a set with the cachefiles
tracepoints if I move those out too.

David