linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:36:20 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 04:04:32PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:17:35PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > 	* call in ext2_remount() is hogwash - we do that with at least
> > root inode pinned down, so it will fail, along with the remount attempt.
> 
> And having it fail is a good thing.  XIP mode means different file and
> address_space operations, which we don't even try to deal with right
> now.  Not allowing transitions from/to it is the right thing.

Exactly.  But that should be done without that ridiculous call to
invalidate_inodes() - we should simply fail remount() and be done
with that.

> > 	* smb reconnect logics.  AFAICS, that's complete crap; we *never*
> > retain inodes on smbfs.  IOW, nothing for invalidate_inodes() to do, other
> > than evict fsnotify marks.  Which is to say, we are calling the wrong
> > function there, even assuming that fsnotify should try to work there.
> 
> I don't think it should mess with fsnotify.  fsnotify_unmount_inodes
> assumes it's only called on umount right now, and sends umount
> notifications to userspace (see my mail from a few days ago).  So if
> you split invalidate_inodes it really should only go into the umount
> one.

No, I mean that it's not obvious that fsnotify clients can realistically
work on smbfs in the first place.  I.e. I suspect that fsnotify should
refuse to set marks on that sucker.
--
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/