| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:52:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Anthony Kazos Jr." <jakj@...-k-j.com> To: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: (un)lock_kernel() ? > 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. I noticed that too. Unless I'm just dumb and can't see it, I'm not able to find any BKL references during filesystem mounting until you get into FS-specific code. I looked through everything from sys_mount through to vfs_kern_mount. Documentation/filesystems/porting talks about several situations where the VFS code was modified to not take the BKL, and BLK calls were added by FS non-maintainers for safety until each FS could be audited independently, but that wouldn't be the case, would it? The ext2 code takes the BKL in three places: ext2_update_inode, write_super, and ext2_compat_ioctl. Starting with ext3, it's in ext3_compat_ioctl and ext3_fill_super, and the same with ext4. I suppose the BKL does have to be held, somehow, somewhere, during mounting, or anybody using ext3 on a multiprocessor box would lock their system from unmatched locking calls. Unless the first unlock_kernel() would make the count -1 and the lock would bring it back to zero? - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists