linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] block/loop: Serialize ioctl operations.

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:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 23:34:52 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot 
        <syzbot+4684a000d5abdade83fac55b1e7d1f935ef1936e@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+bf89c128e05dd6c62523@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] block/loop: Serialize ioctl operations.

Did you get any idea?

On 2018/06/05 3:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/4/18 5:19 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> This problem was already ignored for 8 months. Unless we boost priority,
>> this problem will be ignored for years. Jens, can we test this patch?
> 
> Sorry, it's just that I _really_ hate this patch. We're making up
> a weird locking primitive that tracks the process, with a weird
> unlock helper that only unlocks if it's the process that is
> holding the mutex.
> 
> I'll try and think about this a bit, it would be nice if we had
> a better alternative than the above.
>