linux-kernel - Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

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:	Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:23:26 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Another thing: I don't like what's going on with freeing vs. ->d_lock there.
> Had that been a mutex, we'd definitely get a repeat of "vfs: fix subtle
> use-after-free of pipe_inode_info".  The question is, can spin_unlock(p)
> dereference p after another CPU gets through spin_lock(p)?  Linus?

spin_unlock() *should* be safe wrt that issue.

But I have to say, I think paravirtualized spinlocks may break that.
They do all kinds of "kick waiters" after releasing the lock.

Doesn't the RCU protection solve that, though? Nobody should be
releasing the dentry under us, afaik..

            Linus
--
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/