linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] libfs: Re-arrange locking in offset_iterate

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: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:08:47 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chuck Lever <cel@...nel.org>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, oliver.sang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, lkp@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] libfs: Re-arrange locking in offset_iterate_dir()

* Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com> [240215 12:40]:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:00:08PM -0500, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> > * Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> [240215 08:16]:
> > > On Tue 13-02-24 16:38:08, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Liam says that, unlike with xarray, once the RCU read lock is
> > > > released ma_state is not safe to re-use for the next mas_find() call.
> > > > But the RCU read lock has to be released on each loop iteration so
> > > > that dput() can be called safely.
> > > > 
> > > > Thus we are forced to walk the offset tree with fresh state for each
> > > > directory entry. mt_find() can do this for us, though it might be a
> > > > little less efficient than maintaining ma_state locally.
> > > > 
> > > > Since offset_iterate_dir() doesn't build ma_state locally any more,
> > > > there's no longer a strong need for offset_find_next(). Clean up by
> > > > rolling these two helpers together.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
> > > 
> > > Well, in general I think even xas_next_entry() is not safe to use how
> > > offset_find_next() was using it. Once you drop rcu_read_lock(),
> > > xas->xa_node could go stale. But since you're holding inode->i_rwsem when
> > > using offset_find_next() you should be protected from concurrent
> > > modifications of the mapping (whatever the underlying data structure is) -
> > > that's what makes xas_next_entry() safe AFAIU. Isn't that enough for the
> > > maple tree? Am I missing something?
> > 
> > If you are stopping, you should be pausing the iteration.  Although this
> > works today, it's not how it should be used because if we make changes
> > (ie: compaction requires movement of data), then you may end up with a
> > UAF issue.  We'd have no way of knowing you are depending on the tree
> > structure to remain consistent.
> > 
> > IOW the inode->i_rwsem is protecting writes of data but not the
> > structure holding the data.
> > 
> > This is true for both xarray and maple tree.
> 
> Would it be appropriate to reorder this series so 7/7 comes before
> the transition to use Maple Tree?

I think it would, yes.

Thanks,
Liam