[PATCH review 6/6] vfs: Cache the results of path_connected

J. Bruce Fields bfields at fieldses.org
Wed Aug 5 15:59:48 UTC 2015


On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:58:59PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields at fieldses.org> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:41:32PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> A pathname lookup taking 16 seconds seems absurd.  But perhaps in the
> >> worst case.
> >> 
> >> The maximum length of a path that can be passed into path_lookup is
> >> 4096.  For a lookup to be problematic there must be at least as many
> >> instances of .. as there are of any other path component.  So each pair
> >> of a minium length path element and a .. element must take at least 5
> >> bytes. Which in 4096 bytes leaves room for 819 path elements.  If every
> >> one of those 819 path components triggered a disk seek at 100 seeks per
> >> second I could see a path name lookup potentially taking 8 seconds.
> >
> > A lookup on NFS while a server's rebooting or the network's flaky could
> > take arbitrary long.  Other network filesystems and fuse can have
> > similar problems.  Depending on threat model an attacker might have
> > quite precise control over that timing.  Disk filesystems could have all
> > the same problems since there's no guarantee the underlying block device
> > is really local.  Even ignoring that, hardware can be slow or flaky.
> > And couldn't an allocation in theory block for an arbitrary long time?
> >
> > Apologies for just dropping into the middle here!  I haven't read the
> > rest and don't have the context to know whether any of that's relevant.
> 
> No problem.  The basic question is: can 2Billion renames be performed on
> the same filesystem in less time than a single path lookup?  Allowing
> the use of a 32bit counter.

Certainly if you have control over an NFS or FUSE server then you can
arrange for that to happen--just delay the lookup until you've processed
enough renames.  I don't know if that's interesting....

> If you could look up thread and tell me what you think of the issue with
> file handle to dentry conversion and bind mounts I would be appreciate.

OK, I see your comments in "[PATCH review 0/6] Bind mount escape fixes",
I'm not sure I understand yet, I'll take a closer look.

--b.


More information about the Containers mailing list