public inbox for linux-audit@redhat.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: jack@suse.cz, rgb@redhat.com, amir73il@gmail.com,
	linux-audit@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] audit: Fix possible spurious -ENOSPC error
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 12:00:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180904100008.GF9444@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhSg6yYk=f_qW=WUYjOzCqvm3WgRH_LWa1jQexCZK8rm7Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri 27-07-18 00:47:10, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:02 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > When an inode is tagged with a tree, tag_chunk() checks whether there is
> > audit_tree_group mark attached to the inode and adds one if not. However
> > nothing protects another tag_chunk() to add the mark between we've
> > checked and try to add the fsnotify mark thus resulting in an error from
> > fsnotify_add_mark() and consequently an ENOSPC error from tag_chunk().
> >
> > Fix the problem by holding mark_mutex over the whole check-insert code
> > sequence.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > ---
> >  kernel/audit_tree.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> ...
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/audit_tree.c b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> > index 1c82eb6674c4..de8d344d91b1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/audit_tree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/audit_tree.c
> > @@ -342,25 +342,29 @@ static void untag_chunk(struct node *p)
> >         spin_lock(&hash_lock);
> >  }
> >
> > +/* Call with group->mark_mutex held, releases it */
> 
> Stuff like that always makes me nervous.

Yes, I also prefer to avoid stuff like this.

> Could we defer releasing the mutex to the caller, after create_chunk()
> returns?  It looks like fsnotify_destroy_mark() allows a single level of
> nesting so it should be okay, yes?

This won't work. fsnotify_destroy_mark() would try to acquire the same
mutex and block indefinitely (the nesting depth is there just for lockdep
so that you can possibly nest mark_mutexes of two different group's). And
even if we do more work and use separate fsnotify_detach_mark() and
fsnotify_free_mark() calls instead of fsnotify_destroy_mark(), the problem
is still there as fsnotify_free_mark() must not be called under mark_mutex
(as it can acquire it in some cases).

So as much as I don't like functions that release locks they didn't take I
don't see how to avoid that here without creating even bigger mess.

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

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-04 10:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-10 10:02 [PATCH 0/10 v2] audit: Fix various races when tagging and untagging mounts Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 01/10] audit_tree: Remove mark->lock locking Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-09-04  9:53     ` Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 02/10] audit: Fix possible spurious -ENOSPC error Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-09-04 10:00     ` Jan Kara [this message]
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 03/10] audit: Fix possible tagging failures Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 04/10] audit: Embed key into chunk Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 05/10] audit: Make hash table insertion safe against concurrent lookups Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 06/10] audit: Factor out chunk replacement code Jan Kara
2018-07-11  7:58   ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-11  8:26     ` Jan Kara
2018-07-11  9:01       ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-11  9:23         ` Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 07/10] audit: Remove pointless check in insert_hash() Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 08/10] audit: Provide helper for dropping mark's chunk reference Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 09/10] audit: Allocate fsnotify mark independently of chunk Jan Kara
2018-07-11  8:57   ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-11 10:48     ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-16 15:13       ` Jan Kara
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-09-04 14:03     ` Jan Kara
2018-09-04 14:07       ` Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 10/10] audit: Replace chunk attached to mark instead of replacing mark Jan Kara
2018-07-11 14:17   ` Amir Goldstein
2018-07-27  4:47   ` Paul Moore
2018-09-04 14:11     ` Jan Kara
2018-07-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 11/10 TESTSUITE] audit_testsuite: Add stress test for tree watches Jan Kara

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=20180904100008.GF9444@quack2.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=rgb@redhat.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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