linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] metadata updates vs. fetches (was Re: [PATCH v4] fs: Fix data race in inode_set_ctime_to

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: <CAHk-=whNNdB9jT+4g2ApTKohWyHwHAqB1DJkLKQF=wWAh7c+PQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:53:39 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, 
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Hao-ran Zheng <zhenghaoran@...a.edu.cn>, brauner@...nel.org, 
	jack@...e.cz, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	baijiaju1990@...il.com, 21371365@...a.edu.cn
Subject: Re: [RFC] metadata updates vs. fetches (was Re: [PATCH v4] fs: Fix
 data race in inode_set_ctime_to_ts)

On Sun, 24 Nov 2024 at 15:53, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> a file time which is newer than the actual time of the file.  I tried
> to construct an example, and I couldn't.  eg:
>
> A:      WRITE_ONCE(inode->sec, 5)
> A:      WRITE_ONCE(inode->nsec, 950)
> A:      WRITE_ONCE(inode->sec, 6)
> B:      READ_ONCE(inode->nsec)
> B:      READ_ONCE(inode->sec)
> A:      WRITE_ONCE(inode->sec, 170)
> A:      WRITE_ONCE(inode->sec, 7)
> A:      WRITE_ONCE(inode->sec, 950)
> B:      READ_ONCE(inode->nsec)

I assume those WRITE_ONCE(170/190) should be nsec.

Also note that as long as you insist on using READ_ONCE, your example
is completely bogus due to memory ordering issues. It happens to work
on x86 where all reads are ordered, but on other architectures you'd
literally re-order the reads in question completely.

So assuming we make the read_once be "smp_read_acquire()" to make them
ordered wrt each other, and make the writes ordered with smp_wmb() or
smp_store_release(), I think it still can fail.

Look, let's write 5.000950, 6.000150 and 7.000950, while there is a
single reader (and let's assume these are all properly ordered reads
and writes):

  W1.s 5
  W1.ns 950
  W2.s 6
  R.ns (950)
  R.s (6)
  W2.ns 150
  W3.s 7
  W3.ns 950
  R.ns (950)

and look how the reader is happy, because it got the same nanoseconds
twice. But the reader thinks it had a time of 6.000950, and AT NO
POINT was that actually a valid time.

                    Linus