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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 17:37:34 +0100 From: Alexander Lochmann <alexander.lochmann@...dortmund.de> To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Horst Schirmeier <horst.schirmeier@...dortmund.de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] inode.i_opflags - Usage of two different locking schemes On 16.03.21 18:14, Jan Kara wrote: > > So i_lock is supposed to protect i_opflags for writing AFAICT. For reading > we don't seem to bother in some cases and I agree that is potentially > problematic. It is *mostly* OK because we initialize i_opflags when loading > inode into memory / adding it to dcache. But sometimes we also update them > while the inode is alive. Now this is fine for the particular flag we > update but in theory, if the compiler wants to screw us and stores > temporarily some nonsensical value in i_opflags we'd have a problem. This > is mostly a theoretical issue but eventually we probably want to fix this. > > Honza > Thx for the detailed explanation. :-) - Alex -- Technische Universität Dortmund Alexander Lochmann PGP key: 0xBC3EF6FD Otto-Hahn-Str. 16 phone: +49.231.7556141 D-44227 Dortmund fax: +49.231.7556116 http://ess.cs.tu-dortmund.de/Staff/al
Powered by blists - more mailing lists