linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: dont take i

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, 29 Dec 2022 21:07:04 +0800
From:   Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        elver@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kernfs: dont take i_lock on inode attr read


On 29/12/22 17:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2022, at 00:11, Ian Kent wrote:
>> On 21/12/22 21:34, Anders Roxell wrote:
>>> On 2022-10-31 12:30, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:32:42AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
>>>>> The kernfs write lock is held when the kernfs node inode attributes
>>>>> are updated. Therefore, when either kernfs_iop_getattr() or
>>>>> kernfs_iop_permission() are called the kernfs node inode attributes
>>>>> won't change.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consequently concurrent kernfs_refresh_inode() calls always copy the
>>>>> same values from the kernfs node.
>>>>>
>>>>> So there's no need to take the inode i_lock to get consistent values
>>>>> for generic_fillattr() and generic_permission(), the kernfs read lock
>>>>> is sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
>>>> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Building an allmodconfig arm64 kernel on yesterdays next-20221220 and
>>> booting that in qemu I see the following "BUG: KCSAN: data-race in
>>> set_nlink / set_nlink".
>>
>> I'll check if I missed any places where set_link() could be
>> called where the link count could be different.
>>
>>
>> If there aren't any the question will then be can writing the
>> same value to this location in multiple concurrent threads
>> corrupt it?
> I think the race that is getting reported for set_nlink()
> is about this bit getting called simulatenously on multiple
> CPUs with only the read lock held for the inode:
>
>       /* Yes, some filesystems do change nlink from zero to one */
>       if (inode->i_nlink == 0)
>                 atomic_long_dec(&inode->i_sb->s_remove_count);
>       inode->__i_nlink = nlink;
>
> Since i_nlink and __i_nlink refer to the same memory location,
> the 'inode->i_nlink == 0' check can be true for all of them
> before the nonzero nlink value gets set, and this results in
> s_remove_count being decremented more than once.


Thanks for the comment Arnd.


I'll certainly have a close look at that.

It will be a little while though, given the season, ;).


Ian