linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] must hold lock_super() to set initial mount writer

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:25:42 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
	trond.myklebust@....uio.no, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] must hold lock_super() to set initial mount writer

> We need lock_mnt_writers() during a remount in order
> to keep mnt->__mnt_writers from changing so that we
> get a consistent look at if a sb currently has anyone
> writing to it.
> 
> But, we need to lock writers out for an extended
> period, even during the ->remount_fs() operation.
> That's because we do conclusively make the fs
> r/o until *after* the ->remount_fs().

So?  Why don't we mark the fs r/o _before_ calling ->remount_fs() and
if that fails, just mark it r/w again.

OK, we'll deny writes in that interval, but I don't see that as a big
problem.  And it would simplify the implementation considerably.

Miklos
--
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/