linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] fs: always return zero on success from replace

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: <20250805-beleidigen-klugheit-c19b1657674a@brauner>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 13:55:59 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>, 
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fs: always return zero on success from replace_fd()

On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 04:52:29PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 02:33:13PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> 
> > +       guard(spinlock)(&files->file_lock);
> >         err = expand_files(files, fd);
> >         if (unlikely(err < 0))
> > -               goto out_unlock;
> > -       return do_dup2(files, file, fd, flags);
> > +               return err;
> > +       err = do_dup2(files, file, fd, flags);
> > +       if (err < 0)
> > +               return err;
> > 
> > -out_unlock:
> > -       spin_unlock(&files->file_lock);
> > -       return err;
> > +       return 0;
> >  }
> 
> NAK.  This is broken - do_dup2() drops ->file_lock.  And that's why I

Right, I missed that. Just say it's broken. You don't need to throw
around NAKs pointlessly. It's pretty clear when to drop ptaches without
throwing the meat cleaver through the room.

> loathe the guard() - it's too easy to get confused *and* assume that

The calling conventions of do_dup2() are terrible. The only reason it
drops file_lock itself instead of leaving it to the two callers that
have to acquire it anyway is because it wants to call filp_close() if
there's already a file on that fd.

And really the side-effect of dropping a lock implicitly is nasty
especially when the function doesn't even indicate that it does that in
it's name.

And guards are great.