linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15] fuse: Fix race condition in writethrough path A race

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJnrk1YRNw5M2f1Nxt619SG+wUkF+y2JrMZZCyLqWVd59+-gjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 16:43:51 -0700
From: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: lu gu <giveme.gulu@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>, 
	Bernd Schubert <bernd@...ernd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15] fuse: Fix race condition in writethrough path A race

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 6:40 AM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2025 at 10:46, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> > My idea is to introduce FUSE_I_MTIME_UNSTABLE (which would work
> > similarly to FUSE_I_SIZE_UNSTABLE) and when fetching old_mtime, verify
> > that it hasn't been invalidated.  If old_mtime is invalid or if
> > FUSE_I_MTIME_UNSTABLE signals that a write is in progress, the page
> > cache is not invalidated.
>
> [Adding Brian Foster, the author of FUSE_AUTO_INVAL_DATA patches.
> Link to complete thread:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251009110623.3115511-1-giveme.gulu@gmail.com/#r]
>
> In summary: auto_inval_data invalidates data cache even if the
> modification was done in a cache consistent manner (i.e. write
> through). This is not generally a consistency problem, because the
> backing file and the cache should be in sync.  The exception is when
> the writeback to the backing file hasn't yet finished and a getattr()
> call triggers invalidation (mtime change could be from a previous
> write), and the not yet written data is invalidated and replaced with
> stale data.
>
> The proposed fix was to exclude concurrent reads and writes to the same region.
>
> But the real issue here is that mtime changes triggered by this client
> should not cause data to be invalidated.  It's not only racy, but it's
> fundamentally wrong.  Unfortunately this is hard to do this correctly.
> Best I can come up with is that any request that expects mtime to be
> modified returns the mtime after the request has completed.
>
> This would be much easier to implement in the fuse server: perform the
> "file changed remotely" check when serving a FUSE_GETATTR request and
> return a flag indicating whether the data needs to be invalidated or
> not.

Doesn't this still lead to a problem if the data does need to be
invalidated? If the data changed remotely, then afaict the page cache
would have the new updated data but the newest write data would still
be missing in the page cache.

Thanks,
Joanne

>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Miklos