From: Eric Biggers ebiggers@google.com
commit 2b4eae95c7361e0a147b838715c8baa1380a428f upstream.
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: b1c0ec3599f4 ("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 Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
--- fs/crypto/keysetup.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
--- a/fs/crypto/keysetup.c +++ b/fs/crypto/keysetup.c @@ -515,6 +515,15 @@ int fscrypt_drop_inode(struct inode *ino 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mk_secret_sem, the result here can * immediately become outdated.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 * unnecessarily evicting. Nor is there a correctness problem with not