linux-ext4 - Re: lock i_mutex for fallocate?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:08:48 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Subject: Re: lock i_mutex for fallocate?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 05:33:25PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> In ext4 punch hole, we realized that the punch hole operation needs
> to be done under i_mutex just like truncate.  i_mutex for truncate
> is held in the vfs layer, so we dont need to lock it at the file
> system layer, but vfs does not lock i_mutex for fallocate.  We can
> lock i_mutex for fallocate at the fs layer, but question was raised
> then: should i_mutex for fallocate be held in the vfs layer instead?

No.

> I do not know if other file systems need i_mutex to be locked for
> fallocate,

For one, XFS does not require i_mutex to be held for any extent
manipulation of any kind (allocation, truncation, hole punch,
unwritten extent conversion, etc).

Hence the current structure of having the filesystem take i_mutex if
it needs it to protect allocations against races is appropriate.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html