linux-ext4 - Re: 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E5EDBE4.8010604@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:12:04 -0700
From:	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Subject: Re: lock i_mutex for fallocate?

Oh, I meant for this to go to linux-fsdevel instead of linux-kernel, but 
all feedback is welcome!  :)

On 08/31/2011 05:33 PM, Allison Henderson wrote:
> 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