linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] fs: take i_mutex in __page

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: <20130401173824.GA22443@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:38:24 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: take i_mutex in __page_symlink()

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 05:35:38PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > This was discovered by the addition of a new ext4 debugging assertion
> > which checked to make sure i_mutex was locked before calling
> > ext4_truncate().
> 
> 	I doubt that it's worth doing (inode has just been created and
> nobody else should have references to it - it's not fully set up, after
> all)...

Well, my other option is to drop the assert in ext4_truncate(), which
I thought was a good thing from a perspective of defensive
programming, or to grab the mutex in ext4_symlink() which is what
calles __page_symlink().

Would you prefer that we take the mutex in ext4_symlink() instead?

      	  	      	      	  	- Ted
--
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