Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:29:11 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: check dentry is still valid in get_link()
Message-ID: <20220118082911.rsmv5m2pjeyt6wpg@wittgenstein>
References: <164180589176.86426.501271559065590169.stgit@mickey.themaw.net>
 <YeJr7/E+9stwEb3t@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <275358741c4ee64b5e4e008d514876ed4ec1071c.camel@themaw.net>
 <YeV+zseKGNqnSuKR@bfoster>
 <YeWZRL88KPtLWlkI@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <YeWxHPDbdSfBDtyX@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YeWxHPDbdSfBDtyX@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 06:10:36PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 04:28:52PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > IOW, ->free_inode() is RCU-delayed part of ->destroy_inode().  If both
> > are present, ->destroy_inode() will be called synchronously, followed
> > by ->free_inode() from RCU callback, so you can have both - moving just
> > the "finally mark for reuse" part into ->free_inode() would be OK.
> > Any blocking stuff (if any) can be left in ->destroy_inode()...
> 
> BTW, we *do* have a problem with ext4 fast symlinks.  Pathwalk assumes that
> strings it parses are not changing under it.  There are rather delicate
> dances in dcache lookups re possibility of ->d_name contents changing under
> it, but the search key is assumed to be stable.
> 
> What's more, there's a correctness issue even if we do not oops.  Currently
> we do not recheck ->d_seq of symlink dentry when we dismiss the symlink from
> the stack.  After all, we'd just finished traversing what used to be the
> contents of a symlink that used to be in the right place.  It might have been
> unlinked while we'd been traversing it, but that's not a correctness issue.
> 
> But that critically depends upon the contents not getting mangled.  If it
> *can* be screwed by such unlink, we risk successful lookup leading to the

Out of curiosity: whether or not it can get mangled depends on the
filesystem and how it implements fast symlinks or do fast symlinks
currently guarantee that contents are mangled?