linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/19] VFS: add _async versions of the various directory modifying inode

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: <20250209045705.GU1977892@ZenIV>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 04:57:05 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/19] VFS: add _async versions of the various directory
 modifying inode_operations

On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 01:09:10AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:41:34PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "complete with no lock on directory"
> > part - not without a verifiable proof of correctness of the locking
> > scheme.  Especially if you are putting rename into the mix.
> > 
> > And your method prototypes pretty much bake that in.
> > 
> > *IF* we intend to try going that way (and I'm not at all convinced
> > that it's feasible - locking aside, there's also a shitload of fun
> > with fsnotify, audit, etc.), let's make those new methods take
> > a single argument - something like struct mkdir_args, etc., with
> > inlines for extracting individual arguments out of that.  Yes, it's
> > ugly, but it allows later changes without a massive headache on
> > each calling convention modification.
> > 
> > Said that, an explicit description of locking scheme and a proof of
> > correctness (at least on the "it can't deadlock" level) is, IMO,
> > a hard requirement for the entire thing, async or no async.
> > 
> > We *do* have such for the current locking scheme.
> 
> While we are at it, the locking order is... interesting.  You
> have
> 	* parent's ->i_rwsem before child's d_update_lock()
> 	* for a child, d_update_lock() before ->i_rwsem
> and that - on top of ordering between ->i_rwsem of various
> inodes.
> 
> Do you actually have a proof that it's deadlock-free?

Note that "child's d_update_lock()" might very well be sleeping
on something that is no longer the parent's child, so the
ordering by depth, with ->i_rwsem and d_update_lock interspersed
does not hold.

What am I missing here?  I'd been trying to come up with
a proof of deadlock avoidance, but... no luck so far.