linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: shave work on failed file open

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: <CAG48ez2cExy+QFHpT01d9yh8jbOLR0V8VsR8_==O_AB2fQ+h4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:31:29 +0200
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: shave work on failed file open

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 11:20 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> > But yes, that protection would be broken by SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU,
> > since then the "f_count is zero" is no longer a final thing.
>
> I've tried coming up with a patch that is simple enough so the pattern
> is easy to follow and then converting all places to rely on a pattern
> that combine lookup_fd_rcu() or similar with get_file_rcu(). The obvious
> thing is that we'll force a few places to now always acquire a reference
> when they don't really need one right now and that already may cause
> performance issues.

(Those places are probably used way less often than the hot
open/fget/close paths though.)

> We also can't fully get rid of plain get_file_rcu() uses itself because
> of users such as mm->exe_file. They don't go from one of the rcu fdtable
> lookup helpers to the struct file obviously. They rcu replace the file
> pointer in their struct ofc so we could change get_file_rcu() to take a
> struct file __rcu **f and then comparing that the passed in pointer
> hasn't changed before we managed to do atomic_long_inc_not_zero(). Which
> afaict should work for such cases.
>
> But overall we would introduce a fairly big and at the same time subtle
> semantic change. The idea is pretty neat and it was fun to do but I'm
> just not convinced we should do it given how ubiquitous struct file is
> used and now to make the semanics even more special by allowing
> refcounts.
>
> I've kept your original release_empty_file() proposal in vfs.misc which
> I think is a really nice change.
>
> Let me know if you all passionately disagree. ;)