linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze

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:	Wed, 8 Nov 2006 00:39:38 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
	Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.19 5/5] fs: freeze_bdev with semaphore not mutex

* Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:

> If so, it's a bit sad to switch to semaphore just because of some 
> errant debugging code.  Perhaps it would be better to create a new 
> mutex_unlock_stfu() which suppresses the warning?

the code was not using semaphores as a pure mutex thing. For example 
unlocking by non-owner is not legal. AFAICS the code returns to 
userspace with a held in-kernel mutex. That makes it hard for the kernel 
to determine for example whether the lock has been 'forgotten', or kept 
like that intentionally. Alasdair, what is the motivation for doing it 
like that?

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/