linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked

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:	Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:12:48 +0100
From:	Mathieu SEGAUD <mathieu.segaud@...ala.cx>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sct@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked_ioctl

Vous m'avez dit récemment :

> Vous m'avez dit récemment :
>
>> On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote:
>>> 
>>> Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
>>> exposing BKL's uses.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <mathieu.segaud@...ala.cx>
>>
>> You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(),
>> which calls back into ext2_ioctl with the BKL already held.
>>
>> This is allowed with the BKL, but really bad style that you should
>> avoid. I assume the ext3 and ext4dev versions of your patch have
>> the same issue, but I didn't check in detail.
>
> yep, they do. I noticed this nested calls. I guess I will add
> _extX_compat_ioctl() running with no BKL's which would be used by both
> extX_ioctl() and extX_compat_ioctl().
> Any comments on such a strategy ? thanks a lot for the reminder :)

Well as I am not awake enough, this would sum up to get rid of
lock/unlock_kernel() around extX_ioctl() calls...
Will repost with theses changes.
Thanks.

-- 
Mathieu
-
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