linux-kernel - Re: Does ceph_fill_inode() mishandle I

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: <3cc1ac78a01be069f79dcf82e2f3e9bfe28d9a4b.camel@dubeyko.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 12:14:55 -0700
From: slava@...eyko.com
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Alex Markuze <amarkuze@...hat.com>, Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>, Ilya
 Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, 	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 	Slava.Dubeyko@....com
Subject: Re: Does ceph_fill_inode() mishandle I_NEW?

On Thu, 2025-03-13 at 10:17 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> ceph_fill_inode() seems to be mishandling I_NEW.  It only check I_NEW
> when
> setting i_mode.  It then goes on to clobber a bunch of things in the
> inode
> struct and ceph_inode_info struct (granted in some cases it's
> overwriting with
> the same thing), irrespective of whether the inode is already set up
> (i.e. if I_NEW isn't set).
> 
> It looks like I_NEW has been interpreted as to indicating that the
> inode is
> being created as a filesystem object (e.g. by mkdir) whereas it's
> actually
> merely about allocation and initialisation of struct inode in memory.
> 

What do you mean by mishandling? Do you imply that Ceph has to set up
the I_NEW somehow? Is it not VFS responsibility?

Thanks,
Slava.