linux-ext4 - Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101118185350.GD19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:53:50 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:06:13PM -0500, Ted Ts'o wrote:

> This makes sense to me as well.
> 
> Acked-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
> 
> So how do we want to send this patch to Linus?  It's a writeback
> change, so through some mm tree?  Or it lives in fs/fs-writeback.c
> (which I always thought was weird; why is it not in mm/?), so maybe
> through the VFS tree, even though I don't think Al would really care
> about this patch.

As in "don't really like", TBH.  I'll take it (with saner commit message
and comment in the source), but I really wonder if we are just asking for
more trouble down the road.

Specifically, I *really* want to see locking rules for that sucker
spelled out.  What can be held by caller?
--
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