linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 03/11] mm: Protect operations adding pages to page cache with invalidate

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 13:21:15 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
        linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] mm: Protect operations adding pages to page cache
 with invalidate_lock

On Fri 14-05-21 09:17:30, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:19:45AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > We've been down this path before more than a decade ago when the
> > powers that be decreed that inode locking order is to be "by
> > structure address" rather than inode number, because "inode number
> > is not unique across multiple superblocks".
> > 
> > I'm not sure that there is anywhere that locks multiple inodes
> > across different superblocks, but here we are again....
> 
> Hm.  Are there situations where one would want to lock multiple
> /mappings/ across different superblocks?  The remapping code doesn't
> allow cross-super operations, so ... pipes and splice, maybe?  I don't
> remember that code well enough to say for sure.

Splice and friends work one file at a time. I.e., first they fill a pipe
from the file with ->read_iter, then they flush the pipe to the target file
with ->write_iter. So file locking doesn't get coupled there.

> I've been operating under the assumption that as long as one takes all
> the same class of lock at the same time (e.g. all the IOLOCKs, then all
> the MMAPLOCKs, then all the ILOCKs, like reflink does) that the
> incongruency in locking order rules within a class shouldn't be a
> problem.

That's my understanding as well.

> > > It might simply be time to convert all
> > > three XFS inode locks to use the same ordering rules.
> > 
> > Careful, there lie dragons along that path because of things like
> > how the inode cluster buffer operations work - they all assume
> > ascending inode number traversal within and across inode cluster
> > buffers and hence we do have locking order constraints based on
> > inode number...
> 
> Fair enough, I'll leave the ILOCK alone. :)

OK, so should I change the order for invalidate_lock or shall we just leave
that alone as it is not a practical problem AFAICT.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR