linux-ext4 - Re: (un)lock

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, 04 Apr 2007 10:36:42 -0500
From:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: (un)lock_kernel() ?

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 08:57 -0400, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> Why does ext4_fill_super release the BKL on entry and take it on both 
> normal and abnormal exit? As far as I can see, ext4_fill_super is called 
> by get_sb_bdev, which calls the ->get_sb method without the BKL, and 
> ext4_get_sb calls get_sb_bdev without the BKL. And the ext2 code does not 
> touch the BKL in ext2_fill_super.
> 
> Is the VFS code going to be changed somewhere in the future and it's being 
> anticipated, or is this a bug?

According to Documentation/filesystems/Locking, ->get_sb() is called
with the BKL held, but looking through the code, I'm not able to find
where it is being taken.

Shaggy
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html