All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] fs: detect that the i_rwsem has already been taken exclusively
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:33:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxqpTbC=sZXrbJ0x1OD-UA1NkejuR_s5LCazp+7yzvi3Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1506643967.5691.46.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Originally IMA did define it's own lock, prior to IMA-appraisal.  IMA-
> appraisal introduced writing the file hash as an xattr, which required
> taking the i_mutex.  process_measurement() and ima_file_free() took
> the iint->mutex first and then the i_mutex, while setxattr, chmod and
> chown took the locks in reverse order.  To resolve the potential
> deadlock, the iint->mutex was eliminated.

Umm. You already have an explicit invalidation model, where you
invalidate after a write has occurred.

But the locking of the generation count (or "invalidation status" or
whatever) can - and should be - entirely independent of the locking of
the actual appraisal.

So make the appraisal itself use a semaphore ("only one appraisal at a time").

But use a separate lock for the generation count.
So then appraisal is:

 - get appraisal semaphore
      - get generation count lock
            read generation count
      - drop generation count lock
      - do the actual appraisal
 - drop appraisal semaphore

Note that you now have a tuple of "generation count, appraisal" that
you have *not* saved off yet, but it's your stable thing.

Now you can write the xattr:

  - get exclusive inode lock (for xattr)
      - get generation count lock
          - if the appraisal generation does not match, do NOT write
the appraisal you just calculated, since it's pointless: it's already
stale.
          - otherwise write the appraisal and generation count to the xattr
      - drop generation count lock
  - release exclusive inode lock

and then for anything that does setxattr or chmod or whatever, just
use that generation count lock to invalidate the appraisal. You don't
need to actual appraisal lock for that.

So now the appraisal lock is always the outermost one, and the
generation count lock is always the innermost.

Anyway, I haven't looked at the details of what IMA does, but
something like the above really sounds like it should work and seems
pretty straightforward.

No?

               Linus

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: torvalds@linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 3/3] fs: detect that the i_rwsem has already been taken exclusively
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 17:33:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxqpTbC=sZXrbJ0x1OD-UA1NkejuR_s5LCazp+7yzvi3Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1506643967.5691.46.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Originally IMA did define it's own lock, prior to IMA-appraisal.  IMA-
> appraisal introduced writing the file hash as an xattr, which required
> taking the i_mutex.  process_measurement() and ima_file_free() took
> the iint->mutex first and then the i_mutex, while setxattr, chmod and
> chown took the locks in reverse order.  To resolve the potential
> deadlock, the iint->mutex was eliminated.

Umm. You already have an explicit invalidation model, where you
invalidate after a write has occurred.

But the locking of the generation count (or "invalidation status" or
whatever) can - and should be - entirely independent of the locking of
the actual appraisal.

So make the appraisal itself use a semaphore ("only one appraisal at a time").

But use a separate lock for the generation count.
So then appraisal is:

 - get appraisal semaphore
      - get generation count lock
            read generation count
      - drop generation count lock
      - do the actual appraisal
 - drop appraisal semaphore

Note that you now have a tuple of "generation count, appraisal" that
you have *not* saved off yet, but it's your stable thing.

Now you can write the xattr:

  - get exclusive inode lock (for xattr)
      - get generation count lock
          - if the appraisal generation does not match, do NOT write
the appraisal you just calculated, since it's pointless: it's already
stale.
          - otherwise write the appraisal and generation count to the xattr
      - drop generation count lock
  - release exclusive inode lock

and then for anything that does setxattr or chmod or whatever, just
use that generation count lock to invalidate the appraisal. You don't
need to actual appraisal lock for that.

So now the appraisal lock is always the outermost one, and the
generation count lock is always the innermost.

Anyway, I haven't looked at the details of what IMA does, but
something like the above really sounds like it should work and seems
pretty straightforward.

No?

               Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-29  0:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-28 12:39 [RFC PATCH 0/3] define new read_iter file operation rwf flag Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] fs: define new read_iter " Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39   ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 13:54   ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-09-28 13:54     ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-09-28 14:33     ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 14:33       ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 15:51     ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-28 15:51       ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-28 12:39 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] integrity: use call_read_iter to calculate the file hash Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39   ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] fs: detect that the i_rwsem has already been taken exclusively Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 12:39   ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-28 22:02   ` Dave Chinner
2017-09-28 22:02     ` Dave Chinner
2017-09-28 23:39     ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-28 23:39       ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-29  0:12       ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29  0:12         ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29  0:12         ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29  0:33         ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2017-09-29  0:33           ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-29  1:53           ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29  1:53             ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29  1:53             ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-29  3:26             ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-29  3:26               ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01  1:33               ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-01  1:33                 ` Eric W. Biederman
     [not found]                 ` <CA+55aFx726wT4VprN-sHm6s8Q_PV_VjhTBC4goEbMcerYU1Tig@mail.gmail.com>
2017-10-01 12:08                   ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 12:08                     ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 12:08                     ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 18:41                     ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 18:41                       ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 22:34                       ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-01 22:34                         ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-01 23:15                         ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 23:15                           ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-02  3:54                           ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02  3:54                             ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-01 23:42                         ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 23:42                           ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 23:42                           ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02  3:25                           ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-02  3:25                             ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-02  3:25                             ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-02 12:25                             ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:25                               ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:25                               ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02  4:35                           ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02  4:35                             ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02  4:35                             ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02  4:35                             ` Dave Chinner
2017-10-02 12:09                             ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:09                               ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:09                               ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-02 12:43                               ` Jeff Layton
2017-10-02 12:43                                 ` Jeff Layton
2017-10-01 22:06                   ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-01 22:06                     ` Eric W. Biederman
2017-10-01 22:20                     ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 22:20                       ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-01 23:54                       ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 23:54                         ` Mimi Zohar
2017-10-01 23:54                         ` Mimi Zohar

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='CA+55aFxqpTbC=sZXrbJ0x1OD-UA1NkejuR_s5LCazp+7yzvi3Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.