linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: support filename refcount without atomics

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: <CAGudoHGwaoCMnpFyF3Zxm4BxLqyYD8TiRtpdTyfjJspVa=Re9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:44:57 +0100
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, 
	audit@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: support filename refcount without atomics

On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 5:42 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 05:11:55PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > Atomics are only needed for a combination of io_uring and audit.
> >
> > Regular file access (even with audit) gets around fine without them.
> >
> > With this patch 'struct filename' starts with being refcounted using
> > regular ops.
> >
> > In order to avoid API explosion in the getname*() family, a dedicated
> > routine is added to switch the obj to use atomics.
> >
> > This leaves the room for merely issuing getname(), not issuing the
> > switch and still trying to manipulate the refcount from another thread.
> >
> > Catching such cases is facilitated by CONFIG_DEBUG_VFS-dependent
> > tracking of who created the given filename object and having refname()
> > and putname() detect if another thread is trying to modify them.
>
> Not a good way to handle that, IMO.
>
> Atomics do hurt there, but they are only plastering over the real
> problem - names formed in one thread, inserted into audit context
> there and operation involving them happening in a different thread.
>
> Refcounting avoids an instant memory corruption, but the real PITA
> is in audit users of that stuff.
>
> IMO we should *NOT* grab an audit names slot at getname() time -
> that ought to be done explicitly at later points.
>
> The obstacle is that currently there still are several retry loop
> with getname() done in it; I've most of that dealt with, need to
> finish that series.
>
> And yes, refcount becomes non-atomic as the result.

Well yes, it was audit which caused the appearance of atomics in the
first place. I was looking for an easy way out.

If you have something which gets rid of the underlying problem and it
is going to land in the foreseeable future, I wont be defending this
approach.

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>