linux-kernel - Re: race between vfs_rename and do

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, 15 Feb 2022 17:56:35 +0100
From:   Xavier Roche <xavier.roche@...olia.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: race between vfs_rename and do_linkat (mv and link)

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 5:06 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> Does POSIX actually make any promises in that area?

My understanding is that we inherit from the mandatory atomicity of
all rename calls
(https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/rename.html)
> That specification requires that the action of the function be atomic.

We also inherit from the link call that is required to be atomic
(https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/link.html)
> The link() function shall atomically create a new link for the existing file and the link count of the file shall be incremented by one