[PATCH bpf-next v1 08/11] namei: add an rcu-walk mode to the ancestor walk
sashiko-bot at kernel.org
sashiko-bot at kernel.org
Tue Oct 13 17:01:26 UTC 2026
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] vfs: TOCTOU race in vfs_walk_handover() sequence validation
--
commit 1f35bee40e8028ac4b024dd5a54b6bbdbb5b8521
Author: Justin Suess <utilityemal77 at gmail.com>
namei: add an rcu-walk mode to the ancestor walk
This commit introduces an rcu-walk mode for the stepwise ancestor walk.
It adds lockless progression using sequence validation and provides
vfs_walk_handover() to transition an unreferenced RCU walk into a
referenced walk.
> diff --git a/fs/namei.c b/fs/namei.c
> --- a/fs/namei.c
> +++ b/fs/namei.c
[ ... ]
> +bool vfs_walk_handover(struct vfs_ancestor_walk *to,
> + struct vfs_ancestor_walk *from)
> +{
> + struct path pos = from->pos;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = __legitimize_mnt(pos.mnt, from->m_seq);
> + if (unlikely(err)) {
> + if (err < 0)
> + mnt_undo_legitimize(real_mount(pos.mnt));
> + goto dead;
> + }
> + if (unlikely(read_seqcount_retry(&pos.dentry->d_seq, from->seq) ||
> + !lockref_get_not_dead(&pos.dentry->d_lockref))) {
[Severity: High]
Is there a time-of-check to time-of-use race window here due to the
validation order?
Evaluating read_seqcount_retry() before lockref_get_not_dead() seems to leave
a gap. If a concurrent rename or unlink mutates the dentry and increments the
seqcount right after the sequence check, the subsequent lockref_get_not_dead()
might still blindly succeed on the active d_count.
This would yield a stale and unvalidated path position to the referenced
walk. Should the lockref acquisition strictly precede sequence validation to
ensure the sequence hasn't changed during the reference acquisition?
> + mnt_undo_legitimize(real_mount(pos.mnt));
> + goto dead;
> + }
> + to->pos = pos;
> + to->flags = 0;
> + to->pos_flags = from->pos_flags;
> + return true;
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261013164800.2906577-1-utilityemal77@gmail.com?part=8
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list