linux-ext4 - lock i_mutex for fallocate?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E5ED2D5.8040302@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:33:25 -0700
From:	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Subject: lock i_mutex for fallocate?

Hi All,

In ext4 punch hole, we realized that the punch hole operation needs to 
be done under i_mutex just like truncate.  i_mutex for truncate is held 
in the vfs layer, so we dont need to lock it at the file system layer, 
but vfs does not lock i_mutex for fallocate.  We can lock i_mutex for 
fallocate at the fs layer, but question was raised then: should i_mutex 
for fallocate be held in the vfs layer instead?  I do not know if other 
file systems need i_mutex to be locked for fallocate, or if they might 
be locking it already, so I am doing some investigating on this idea, 
and also the appropriate use of i_mutex in general.  Can someone provide 
some insight this topic?  Thx!

Allison Henderson
--
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