From: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 08/11] namei: add an rcu-walk mode to the ancestor walk
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 13:56:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <as5v6B-8O2QQw3zC@zenbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <sashiko-outbox-170183@kernel.org>
On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 05:01:26PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> - [High] vfs: TOCTOU race in vfs_walk_handover() sequence validation
> --
>
> commit 1f35bee40e8028ac4b024dd5a54b6bbdbb5b8521
> Author: Justin Suess <utilityemal77@gmail.com>
>
> namei: add an rcu-walk mode to the ancestor walk
>
> This commit introduces an rcu-walk mode for the stepwise ancestor walk.
> It adds lockless progression using sequence validation and provides
> vfs_walk_handover() to transition an unreferenced RCU walk into a
> referenced walk.
>
> > diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > +++ b/fs/namei.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > +bool vfs_walk_handover(struct vfs_ancestor_walk *to,
> > + struct vfs_ancestor_walk *from)
> > +{
> > + struct path pos = from->pos;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + err = __legitimize_mnt(pos.mnt, from->m_seq);
> > + if (unlikely(err)) {
> > + if (err < 0)
> > + mnt_undo_legitimize(real_mount(pos.mnt));
> > + goto dead;
> > + }
> > + if (unlikely(read_seqcount_retry(&pos.dentry->d_seq, from->seq) ||
> > + !lockref_get_not_dead(&pos.dentry->d_lockref))) {
>
> [Severity: High]
> Is there a time-of-check to time-of-use race window here due to the
> validation order?
>
> Evaluating read_seqcount_retry() before lockref_get_not_dead() seems to leave
> a gap. If a concurrent rename or unlink mutates the dentry and increments the
> seqcount right after the sequence check, the subsequent lockref_get_not_dead()
> might still blindly succeed on the active d_count.
>
> This would yield a stale and unvalidated path position to the referenced
> walk. Should the lockref acquisition strictly precede sequence validation to
> ensure the sequence hasn't changed during the reference acquisition?
>
This is intended and explained in the cover letter note,
"stuff not changed" bullet one.
Justin
> > + mnt_undo_legitimize(real_mount(pos.mnt));
> > + goto dead;
> > + }
> > + to->pos = pos;
> > + to->flags = 0;
> > + to->pos_flags = from->pos_flags;
> > + return true;
>
> --
> Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261013164800.2906577-1-utilityemal77@gmail.com?part=8
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-13 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-13 16:47 [PATCH bpf-next v1 00/11] fs: unified VFS ancestor walk for Landlock and BPF Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 01/11] namei: introduce __path_walk_parent() Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 02/11] namei: add vfs_walk_ancestors() Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 03/11] landlock: convert ancestor walk to vfs_walk_ancestors() Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 04/11] namei: expose the stepwise ancestor walk to fs/ Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 05/11] bpf: add a path ancestor iterator Justin Suess
2026-10-13 17:11 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-13 18:00 ` Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 06/11] selftests/bpf: exercise the " Justin Suess
2026-10-13 19:50 ` Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 07/11] fs: add mnt_undo_legitimize() Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 08/11] namei: add an rcu-walk mode to the ancestor walk Justin Suess
2026-10-13 17:01 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-13 17:56 ` Justin Suess [this message]
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 09/11] bpf: support "__uninit" iterator arguments in generic kfuncs Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:47 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 10/11] bpf: add a lockless path ancestor iterator Justin Suess
2026-10-13 16:48 ` [PATCH bpf-next v1 11/11] selftests/bpf: exercise the " Justin Suess
2026-10-13 17:50 ` bot+bpf-ci
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=as5v6B-8O2QQw3zC@zenbox \
--to=utilityemal77@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox