On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:01:30AM -0700, Joshua Hudson wrote:
> Herein lies the problem with the current locking scheme:
> 1. rename locks target if it exists, but target may be created by
> link() immediately
> after the check&lock procedure.
> 2. The target of link() is completely unprotected.
3. You have failed to RTFS or RTFM.
> Against ext2, this can result in a corrupted filesystem (two directory
> entries with
> the same name) by a three-way race between two instances of link() and one
> unlink().
Not really.
> 1. Both instances of link are started with target being the same name
> in the same directory.
> 2. unlink() is started on a different name in the same directory.
> 3. link() 1 doesn't find a free slot in the first page, moves to the second.
> *rescheduled before locking second page*
> 4. unlink() finds target in first page, removes it.
> 5. link() 2 finds free slot in first page, creates entry, finishes
> 6. link() 1 continues, finds space in second page, creates entry
And this is BS, since link() _does_ grab ->i_sem on directory it modifies.
So does unlink().
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
