* [PATCH] xfs: take XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL if suid removal is required
@ 2015-03-06 16:54 Eric Sandeen
2015-03-06 21:09 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2015-03-06 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs-oss
This sequence:
# rm -f sparsefile
# truncate --size=1m sparsefile
# chmod ugo+rws sparsefile
# ls -l sparsefile
-rwSrwSrw-. 1 root root 1048576 Mar 6 10:29 sparsefile
# su tester
$ xfs_io -d -c "pwrite 0 4096" sparsefile
wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0
4 KiB, 1 ops; 0.0000 sec (21.505 KiB/sec and 5.3763 ops/sec)
$ exit
will lead to a WARN_ON() in notify change, because i_mutex is
not held, and we get to notify_change via suid removal with
only XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED held, i.e. no i_mutex.
Upgrade the lock to XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL in this case.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
---
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
index a2e1cb8..e64d5b1 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
@@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ xfs_zero_eof(
*
* Called with the iolocked held either shared and exclusive according to
* @iolock, and returns with it held. Might upgrade the iolock to exclusive
- * if called for a direct write beyond i_size.
+ * if called for a direct write beyond i_size or if suid removal is required.
*/
STATIC ssize_t
xfs_file_aio_write_checks(
@@ -551,6 +551,7 @@ xfs_file_aio_write_checks(
int *iolock)
{
struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
+ struct dentry *dentry = file->f_path.dentry;
struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
int error = 0;
@@ -569,9 +570,12 @@ restart:
* write. If zeroing is needed and we are currently holding the
* iolock shared, we need to update it to exclusive which implies
* having to redo all checks before.
+ *
+ * We also must be locked exclusively if this write will require
+ * suid removal; notify_change expects i_mutex to be locked.
*/
- if (*pos > i_size_read(inode)) {
- bool zero = false;
+ if (*pos > i_size_read(inode) || should_remove_suid(dentry)) {
+ bool z = false;
if (*iolock == XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED) {
xfs_rw_iunlock(ip, *iolock);
@@ -579,9 +583,12 @@ restart:
xfs_rw_ilock(ip, *iolock);
goto restart;
}
- error = xfs_zero_eof(ip, *pos, i_size_read(inode), &zero);
- if (error)
- return error;
+
+ if (*pos > i_size_read(inode) ) {
+ error = xfs_zero_eof(ip, *pos, i_size_read(inode), &z);
+ if (error)
+ return error;
+ }
}
/*
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] xfs: take XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL if suid removal is required
2015-03-06 16:54 [PATCH] xfs: take XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL if suid removal is required Eric Sandeen
@ 2015-03-06 21:09 ` Dave Chinner
2015-03-09 14:28 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-15 15:26 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2015-03-06 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs-oss
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:54:06AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> This sequence:
>
> # rm -f sparsefile
> # truncate --size=1m sparsefile
> # chmod ugo+rws sparsefile
> # ls -l sparsefile
> -rwSrwSrw-. 1 root root 1048576 Mar 6 10:29 sparsefile
> # su tester
>
> $ xfs_io -d -c "pwrite 0 4096" sparsefile
> wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0
> 4 KiB, 1 ops; 0.0000 sec (21.505 KiB/sec and 5.3763 ops/sec)
> $ exit
>
> will lead to a WARN_ON() in notify change, because i_mutex is
> not held, and we get to notify_change via suid removal with
> only XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED held, i.e. no i_mutex.
>
> Upgrade the lock to XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL in this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
I believe Jan Kara has already addressed this problem in
this patchset:
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-03/msg00051.html
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: take XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL if suid removal is required
2015-03-06 21:09 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2015-03-09 14:28 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-15 15:26 ` Eric Sandeen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2015-03-09 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner, Eric Sandeen; +Cc: xfs-oss
On 3/6/15 4:09 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
...
>> Upgrade the lock to XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL in this case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>
> I believe Jan Kara has already addressed this problem in
> this patchset:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-03/msg00051.html
Ah, yes, that should fix it. Thanks Jan.
Sorry for missing it.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: take XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL if suid removal is required
2015-03-06 21:09 ` Dave Chinner
2015-03-09 14:28 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2015-06-15 15:26 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-07-09 10:17 ` Jan Kara
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2015-06-15 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner, Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Jan Kara, xfs-oss
On 3/6/15 3:09 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:54:06AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> This sequence:
>>
>> # rm -f sparsefile
>> # truncate --size=1m sparsefile
>> # chmod ugo+rws sparsefile
>> # ls -l sparsefile
>> -rwSrwSrw-. 1 root root 1048576 Mar 6 10:29 sparsefile
>> # su tester
>>
>> $ xfs_io -d -c "pwrite 0 4096" sparsefile
>> wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0
>> 4 KiB, 1 ops; 0.0000 sec (21.505 KiB/sec and 5.3763 ops/sec)
>> $ exit
>>
>> will lead to a WARN_ON() in notify change, because i_mutex is
>> not held, and we get to notify_change via suid removal with
>> only XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED held, i.e. no i_mutex.
>>
>> Upgrade the lock to XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL in this case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
>
> I believe Jan Kara has already addressed this problem in
> this patchset:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-03/msg00051.html
Seems like that patchset never made it anywhere, though, so this
is still an outstanding problem. :(
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs: take XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL if suid removal is required
2015-06-15 15:26 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2015-07-09 10:17 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2015-07-09 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Eric Sandeen, Jan Kara, xfs-oss
On Mon 15-06-15 10:26:37, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/6/15 3:09 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:54:06AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> This sequence:
> >>
> >> # rm -f sparsefile
> >> # truncate --size=1m sparsefile
> >> # chmod ugo+rws sparsefile
> >> # ls -l sparsefile
> >> -rwSrwSrw-. 1 root root 1048576 Mar 6 10:29 sparsefile
> >> # su tester
> >>
> >> $ xfs_io -d -c "pwrite 0 4096" sparsefile
> >> wrote 4096/4096 bytes at offset 0
> >> 4 KiB, 1 ops; 0.0000 sec (21.505 KiB/sec and 5.3763 ops/sec)
> >> $ exit
> >>
> >> will lead to a WARN_ON() in notify change, because i_mutex is
> >> not held, and we get to notify_change via suid removal with
> >> only XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED held, i.e. no i_mutex.
> >>
> >> Upgrade the lock to XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL in this case.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> >
> > I believe Jan Kara has already addressed this problem in
> > this patchset:
> >
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-03/msg00051.html
>
> Seems like that patchset never made it anywhere, though, so this
> is still an outstanding problem. :(
Al just merged the patch set during this merge window. Hurray!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-07-09 10:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-03-06 16:54 [PATCH] xfs: take XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL if suid removal is required Eric Sandeen
2015-03-06 21:09 ` Dave Chinner
2015-03-09 14:28 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-15 15:26 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-07-09 10:17 ` Jan Kara
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox