lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 3/3] fs: detect that the i_rwsem has already been taken exclusively
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 11:41:48AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Right, re-introducing the iint->mutex and a new i_generation field in
> > the iint struct with a separate set of locks should work. It will be
> > reset if the file metadata changes (eg. setxattr, chown, chmod).
>
> Note that the "inner lock" could possibly be omitted if the
> invalidation can be just a single atomic instruction.
>
> So particularly if invalidation could be just an atomic_inc() on the
> generation count, there might not need to be any inner lock at all.
>
> You'd have to serialize the actual measurement with the "read
> generation count", but that should be as simple as just doing a
> smp_rmb() between the "read generation count" and "do measurement on
> file contents".

We already have a change counter on the inode, which is modified on
any data or metadata write (i_version) under filesystem locks. The
i_version counter has well defined semantics - it's required by
NFSv4 to increment on any metadata or data change - so we should be
able to rely on it's behaviour to implement IMA as well. Filesystems
that support i_version are marked with [SB|MS]_I_VERSION in the
superblock (IS_I_VERSION(inode)) so it should be easy to tell if IMA
can be supported on a specific filesystem (btrfs, ext4, fuse and xfs
ATM).

The IMA code should be able to sample that at measurement time and
either fail or be retried if i_version changes during measurement.
We can then simply make the IMA xattr write conditional on the
i_version value being unchanged from the sample the IMA code passes
into the filesystem once the filesystem holds all the locks it needs
to write the xattr...

I note that IMA already grabs the i_version in
ima_collect_measurement(), so this shouldn't be too hard to do.
Perhaps we don't need any new locks or counters at all, maybe just
the ability to feed a version cookie to the set_xattr method?

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-02 00:34    [W:0.071 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site