linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] remove the BKL: Replace BKL in mount/umount syscalls with a mutex

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:	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:13:46 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] remove the BKL: Replace BKL in mount/umount
	syscalls with a mutex


* Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:49:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > They dont really protect anything - the patch is wrong and 
> > equivalent to a plain removal of the BKL.
> > 
> > The only case we found to ever matter in practice is NFS: it 
> > really wants to get rid of the BKL in nfsd_get_sb(). So pushing 
> > down the BKL lock into per filesystems and then removing it from 
> > NFS should do the trick.
> > 
> > Would be nice to have some tentative Ack (or, a tentative 
> > non-immediate-NAK) from Al before we go touch a lot of 
> > filesystems though. Stupid dont-waste-human-effort 
> > considerations and stuff.
> > 
> > For us, the much simpler solution would be to drop the BKL in 
> > nfsd_get_sb() and go on with life without to touch a dozen or so 
> > filesystems. Alessio, mind trying that too, is it a solution for 
> > your testcase?
> 
> What about trying to attack it piece-mail?  ->unmount_begin is 
> really easy.  The only one that doesn't protect everything 
> properly is 9p, but it doesn't protect the state variable deep 
> down a few levels of function calls at all.
> 
> ->remount_fs should be easy enough to, we do have proper per-sb 
> protection here, but do_remount_sb will need a bit of an audit. 
> (and of course pushing lock_kernel down into the many instances 
> and leave the cleanup-work to the fs maintainers).
> 
> The actual mount path is more interesting as there are quite a few 
> cases there.  As a first step you can take lock_kernel from 
> outside do_mount into the various do_foo calls inside it, and then 
> work on those piece by piece.

We'd be glad to - but only with full principle and workflow backing 
of VFS-folks. This has been going on for more than a year - with 
ancient commits in tip:core/kill-the-BKL. I cannot mix stuff into it 
that gets eventual hostile treatment and NAKs a few months down the 
line, should this be submitted upstream.

	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/