linux-kernel - Re: Patch for a overwriting/corruption of the file system

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230421030017.GA3390869@ZenIV>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 04:00:17 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Kirtikumar Anandrao Ramchandani <kirtiar15502@...il.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        "cc: Greg KH" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, security@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: Patch for a overwriting/corruption of the file system

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:33:48PM +0530, Kirtikumar Anandrao Ramchandani wrote:
> While I am going through the code at the moment, I think there is one more
> issue. It probably can't just compare "old_dir" and "new_dir", since those
> are just pointers to structs. So, both addresses can be completely
> different, and still represent the same folder, yes?

No, they can not.  We should never have different in-core instances of
struct inode representing the same on-disk object - otherwise all locking
goes to hell, for example.