linux-kernel - Re: loop: fix deadlock when sysfs and LOOP_CLR

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:	Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:42:59 +0200
From:	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Cc:	Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: loop: fix deadlock when sysfs and LOOP_CLR_FD race against each other

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 22:20, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com> wrote:
> On 2011-07-30 21:19, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> Instead of taking the lo_ctl_mutex from sysfs code, take the inner
>> lo->lo_lock, to protect the access to the backing_file data.
>>
>> Thanks to Tejun for help debugging and finding a solution.
>
> Looks good, looks like something that should have a stable tag as well?

Right, I think it makes sense to have that in -stable.

It's pretty hard to trigger, I had multiple threads running, crawling
/sys and adding/binding/unbinding/removing 1000s of loop devices, and
it takes several minutes sometimes until its hit. So I only tested it
on top of the 3 loop-control patches, but the issue should exist in
the current code as well.

Thanks,
Kay
--
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/