linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fs/inode.c: change the order of initialization in inode_init

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Yw/18jnzW8fA3BYd@ZenIV>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 00:59:46 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Rustam Subkhankulov <subkhankulov@...ras.ru>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
        ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs/inode.c: change the order of initialization in
 inode_init_always()

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:25:21PM +0300, Rustam Subkhankulov wrote:
> If function security_inode_alloc() returns a nonzero value due to an
> error (e.g. fail to allocate memory), then some of the fields, including
> 'i_private', will not be initialized.
> 
> After that, if the fs-specfic free_inode function is called in
> i_callback(), the nonzero value of 'i_private' field can be interpreted
> as initialized. As a result, this can cause dereferencing of random
> value pointer (e.g. nilfs2).
> 
> In earlier versions, a similar situation could occur with the 'u' union
> in 'inode' structure.

See vfs.git#work.inode (included into #for-next); I agree that your
commit message looks better, but...