Re: [PATCH v3] securityfs: fix missing of d_delete() in securityfs_remove()

[Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 8 May 2025 18:55:30 -0700, Fan Wu <wufan@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 7:11 AM <alexjlzheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@tencent.com>
> >
> > Consider the following execution flow:
> >
> >   Thread 0: securityfs_create_dir("A")
> >   Thread 1: cd /sys/kernel/security/A           <- we hold 'A'
> >   Thread 0: securityfs_remove(dentry)           <- 'A' don't go away
> >   Thread 0: securityfs_create_dir("A")          <- Failed: File exists!
> >
> > Although the LSM module will not be dynamically added or deleted after
> > the kernel is started, it may dynamically add or delete pseudo files
> > for status export or function configuration in userspace according to
> > different status, which we are not prohibited from doing so.
> >
> > In addition, securityfs_recursive_remove() avoids this problem by calling
> > __d_drop() directly. As a non-recursive version, it is somewhat strange
> > that securityfs_remove() does not clean up the deleted dentry.
> >
> > Fix this by adding d_delete() in securityfs_remove().
> >
> > Fixes: b67dbf9d4c198 ("[PATCH] add securityfs for all LSMs to use")
> > Signed-off-by: Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@tencent.com>
> > ---
> > changelog:
> > v3: Modify the commit message to avoid readers mistakenly thinking that the LSM is being dynamically loaded
> > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250507111204.2585739-1-alexjlzheng@tencent.com/
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250425092548.6828-1-alexjlzheng@tencent.com/
> > ---
> >  security/inode.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/security/inode.c b/security/inode.c
> > index da3ab44c8e57..d99baf26350a 100644
> > --- a/security/inode.c
> > +++ b/security/inode.c
> > @@ -306,6 +306,7 @@ void securityfs_remove(struct dentry *dentry)
> >                         simple_rmdir(dir, dentry);
> >                 else
> >                         simple_unlink(dir, dentry);
> > +               d_delete(dentry);
> >                 dput(dentry);
> >         }
> >         inode_unlock(dir);
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >
> >
> 
> Since this could impact efi_secret_unlink(), I would suggest adding linux-efi.

Thank you for your reply. :)

Did you mean cc to linux-efi?

thanks,
Jinliang Zheng.

> 
> -Fan