netdev - Re: [PATCH 12/15] driver core: Implement tagged directory support for device classes.

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, 16 Jul 2008 16:02:36 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <teheo@...e.de>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
	Benjamin Thery <benjamin.thery@...l.net>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] driver core: Implement tagged directory support
 for device classes.

Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Eric.
> 
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> writes:
>>
>>> It's a bit scary tho.  Working inode->i_dentry or dentry->d_alias
>>> crosses multiple sb's.  sysfs isn't too greedy about dcache/icache.
>>> Only open files and directories hold them and only single copy of
>>> sysfs_dirent is there for most nodes.  Wouldn't it be better to stay on
>>> the safer side and use separate inode hierarchy?
>> To do that I believe we would need to ensure sysfs does not use 
>> the inode->i_mutex lock except to keep the VFS layer out.  Allowing us
>> to safely change the directory structure, without holding it.
> 
> I don't think sysfs is depending on i_mutex anymore but I need to go
> through the code to make sure.
> 
>> You raise a good point about inode->i_dentry and dentry->d_alias.
>> Generally they are used by fat like filesystems but I am starting to
>> see uses in generic pieces of code.  I don't see any problems today
>> but yes it would be good to do the refactoring to allow us to duplicate
>> the inodes. 
> 
> Yeah, I can't spot any place which can cause actual problem yet but it's
> still scary as we're breaking a vfs assumption and even if it's not a
> problem now, future seemingly unrelated changes can break things subtly.

Okay, one small problem spotted.  It seems invalidate_inodes() can fail
which will make generic_shutdown_super() complain.  It's not a fatal
failure tho.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html