linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] fuse: In fuse_flush only wait if someone wants the return code

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: <CAJfpegtckCReg7V6ET4a8EW_X-WfmANQdc4hP26bV9zoRrk7Wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 15:26:19 +0100
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Cc:     Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fuse: In fuse_flush only wait if someone wants the
 return code

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 at 16:01, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza> wrote:
>
> Hi Milkos,
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 09:02:09AM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > v3: use schedule_work() to avoid other sleeps in inode_write_now() and
> >     fuse_sync_writes(). Fix a UAF of the stack-based inarg.
>
> Thoughts on this version?

Skipping attr invalidation on success is wrong.  And there's still too
much duplication, IMO.

How about the attached (untested) patch?

Thanks,
Miklos

View attachment "fuse-flush-async-if-exiting.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (3374 bytes)