linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 03/24] fs: distinguish between user initiated freeze and kernel initiated freeze

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: <ZFckQz3udm48kprc@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Sat, 6 May 2023 21:08:35 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, hch@...radead.org,
        song@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bvanassche@....org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        mchehab@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org, p.raghav@...sung.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...force.de,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 03/24] fs: distinguish between user initiated freeze and
 kernel initiated freeze

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 10:28:12AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 17-01-23 18:25:40, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > [add linux-xfs to cc on this one]
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:33:48PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > Userspace can initiate a freeze call using ioctls. If the kernel decides
> > > to freeze a filesystem later it must be able to distinguish if userspace
> > > had initiated the freeze, so that it does not unfreeze it later
> > > automatically on resume.
> > 
> > Hm.  Zooming out a bit here, I want to think about how kernel freezes
> > should behave...
> > 
> > > Likewise if the kernel is initiating a freeze on its own it should *not*
> > > fail to freeze a filesystem if a user had already frozen it on our behalf.
> > 
> > ...because kernel freezes can absorb an existing userspace freeze.  Does
> > that mean that userspace should be prevented from undoing a kernel
> > freeze?  Even in that absorption case?
> > 
> > Also, should we permit multiple kernel freezes of the same fs at the
> > same time?  And if we do allow that, would they nest like freeze used to
> > do?
> > 
> > (My suggestions here are 'yes', 'yes', and '**** no'.)
> 
> Yeah, makes sense to me. So I think the mental model to make things safe
> is that there are two flags - frozen_by_user, frozen_by_kernel - and the
> superblock is kept frozen as long as either of these is set.

Makes sense to me.

  Luis