mirror of
https://github.com/AuxXxilium/linux_dsm_epyc7002.git
synced 2024-11-24 02:50:53 +07:00
fscrypt: don't evict dirty inodes after removing key
After FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY removes a key, it syncs the
filesystem and tries to get and put all inodes that were unlocked by the
key so that unused inodes get evicted via fscrypt_drop_inode().
Normally, the inodes are all clean due to the sync.
However, after the filesystem is sync'ed, userspace can modify and close
one of the files. (Userspace is *supposed* to close the files before
removing the key. But it doesn't always happen, and the kernel can't
assume it.) This causes the inode to be dirtied and have i_count == 0.
Then, fscrypt_drop_inode() failed to consider this case and indicated
that the inode can be dropped, causing the write to be lost.
On f2fs, other problems such as a filesystem freeze could occur due to
the inode being freed while still on f2fs's dirty inode list.
Fix this bug by making fscrypt_drop_inode() only drop clean inodes.
I've written an xfstest which detects this bug on ext4, f2fs, and ubifs.
Fixes: b1c0ec3599
("fscrypt: add FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY ioctl")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.4+
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200305084138.653498-1-ebiggers@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
98d54f81e3
commit
2b4eae95c7
@ -538,6 +538,15 @@ int fscrypt_drop_inode(struct inode *inode)
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
mk = ci->ci_master_key->payload.data[0];
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* With proper, non-racy use of FS_IOC_REMOVE_ENCRYPTION_KEY, all inodes
|
||||
* protected by the key were cleaned by sync_filesystem(). But if
|
||||
* userspace is still using the files, inodes can be dirtied between
|
||||
* then and now. We mustn't lose any writes, so skip dirty inodes here.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_ALL)
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Note: since we aren't holding ->mk_secret_sem, the result here can
|
||||
* immediately become outdated. But there's no correctness problem with
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user