linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.10] aio: restore locking of ioctx list on removal

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:	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:03:47 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>
Cc:	stable@...r.kernel.org, Eryu Guan <eguan@...hat.com>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>, linux-aio@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.10] aio: restore locking of ioctx list on removal

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:09:02AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> Commit 36f5588905c10a8c4568a210d601fe8c3c27e0f0
> "aio: refcounting cleanup" resulted in ioctx_lock not being held
> during ctx removal, leaving the list susceptible to corruptions.
> 
> In mainline kernel the issue went away as a side effect of
> db446a08c23d5475e6b08c87acca79ebb20f283c "aio: convert the ioctx list to
> table lookup v3".
> 
> Fix the problem by restoring appropriate locking.

Why can't I just take db446a08c23d5475e6b08c87acca79ebb20f283c instead?
Does it not work well enough, or is there other issues involved in it
that would keep it out of stable?

Also, it seems like the performance increase of that patch would be good
to have backported, right?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/