linux-kernel - Re: [for-linus][PATCH 1/3] eventfs: Have the inodes all for files and directories all be the same

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: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 13:27:25 -0500
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
 Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
 Ajay Kaher <ajay.kaher@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [for-linus][PATCH 1/3] eventfs: Have the inodes all for files and
 directories all be the same

On 2024-01-22 13:19, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, why not juist add an inode number to your data structures,
>> at least for directories? And just do a static increment on it as they
>> get registered?
>>
>> That avoids the whole issue with possibly leaking kernel address data.
> 
> The 'nlink = 1' thing doesn't seem to make 'find' any happier for this
> case, sadly.
> 
> But the inode number in the 'struct eventfs_inode' looks trivial. And
> doesn't even grow that structure on 64-bit architectures at least,
> because the struct is already 64-bit aligned, and had only one 32-bit
> entry at the end.
> 
> On 32-bit architectures the structure size grows, but I'm not sure the
> allocation size grows. Our kmalloc() is quantized at odd numbers.
> 
> IOW, this trivial patch seems to be much safer than worrying about
> some pointer exposure.

My only concern about the simple ino_counter static increment is what
happens in the unlikely scenario of a 32-bit overflow. This is why
I suggested using a bitmap to track inode allocation. It's compact, and
we don't care that much about the linear bitmap scan overhead because
it's far from being a fast path.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com