linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] btrfs: add fs state details to error messages.

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:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:10:59 -0500
From:   Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@...miny.me>
To:     dsterba@...e.cz, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] btrfs: add fs state details to error messages.

> Added to misc-next with some minor updates, thanks.
>
Awesome, thank you. I realized this morning that it might be technically 
slightly racy actually and would propose something like the following

static void btrfs_state_to_string(const struct btrfs_fs_info *info, char *buf)
{
	unsigned int bit;
+	unsigned long fs_state = READ_ONCE(info->fs_state);
	unsigned int states_printed = 0;
	char *curr = buf;

	memcpy(curr, STATE_STRING_PREFACE, sizeof(STATE_STRING_PREFACE));
	curr += sizeof(STATE_STRING_PREFACE) - 1;

-	for_each_set_bit(bit, &info->fs_state, sizeof(info->fs_state)) {
+	for_each_set_bit(bit, fs_state, sizeof(fs_state)) {

All the other interactions with info->fs_state are test/set/clear_bit, which treat the argument as volatile and are therefore safe to do from multiple threads. Without the READ_ONCE (reading it as a volatile), the compiler or cpu could turn the reads of info->fs_state in for_each_set_bit() into writes of random stuff into info->fs_state, potentially clearing the state bits or filling them with garbage.

Even if this is right, it'd be rare, but it would be exceeding weird for a message to be logged listing an error and then future messages be logged without any such state, or with a random collection of garbage states.

I can send another patch if this explanation seems reasonable and you'd like it separate; or maybe this is too unlikely to worry about. Thanks again for the review!

Sweet Tea