linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] splice: i_mutex vs splice write deadlock

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

Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:07:21 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] splice: i_mutex vs splice write deadlock

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:10:03PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I don't really like this very much.  Not taking the i_mutex at all
> makes the splice_write method in XFS use different locking than
> everyone else, and different from the normal XFS write path.
> 
> For example ocfs2 which has the same locking issues just has an
> own implementation of the splice_write method, which isn't
> too nice but at least marginally better.  I think the right
> fix for both xfs and ocfs2 would be to have a generic_file_splice_write
> variant that takes an "actor" function pointer, which defaults to
> a smaller wrapper around file_remove_suid, file_update_time and
> splice_from_pipe_feed, and then XFS and ocfs2 can provide their
> own actors that add the additional locking.

Yeah I thought about doing that, but wanted to try a simpler version
first. I'll code up the actor variant.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/