linux-kernel - Re: [resend PATCH v2 2/2] fuse: ensure that submounts lookup their parent

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: <CAJfpegtzyUhcVbYrLG5Uhdur9fPxtdvxyYhFzCBf9Q8v6fK3Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 20:27:34 +0200
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:     Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        German Maglione <gmaglione@...hat.com>,
        Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>, Max Reitz <mreitz@...hat.com>,
        Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [resend PATCH v2 2/2] fuse: ensure that submounts lookup their parent

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 18:32, Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 09:07:33AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 03:26, Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am curious what you have in mind in order to move this towards a
> > > proper fix?  I shied away from the approach of stealing a nlookup from
> > > mp_fi beacuse it wasn't clear that I could always count on the nlookup
> > > in the parent staying positive.  E.g. I was afraid I was either going to
> > > not have enough nlookups to move to submounts, or trigger a forget from
> > > an exiting container that leads to an EBADF from the initial mount
> > > namespace.
> >
> > One idea is to transfer the nlookup to a separately refcounted object
> > that is referenced from mp_fi as well as all the submounts.
>
> That seems possible.  Would the idea be to move all tracking of nlookup
> to a separate refcounted object for the particular nodeid, or just do
> this for the first lookup of a submount?

Just for submounts.  And yes, it should work if the count from the
first lookup is transferred to this object (fuse_iget()) and
subsequent counts (fuse_dentry_revalidate()) go to the mountpoint
inode as usual.  This will result in more than one FORGET in most
cases, but that's okay.

> Would you like me to put together a v3 that heads this direction?

That would be great, thanks.

Miklos