linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19-rc3: known unfixed regressions (v3)

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610300834060.25218@g5.osdl.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:44:13 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To:	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>,
	Martin Lorenz <martin@...enz.eu.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	len.brown@...el.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...l.org,
	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3: known unfixed regressions (v3)

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> 
> The code is related to bd_claim_by_disk which is called when
> device-mapper or md tries to mark the underlying devices
> for exclusive use and creates symlinks from/to the devices
> in sysfs. The patch added error handlings which weren't in
> the original code.

Actually, looking closer at the code, the patch seems to add _incorrect_ 
error handling.

For example, look at bd_claim_by_kobject(): if the "bd_claim()" inside of 
it succeeds, we used to always return success. Now, we don't necessarily 
do that: we may have done a _successful_ "bd_claim()" call, but then we 
return an error because something else failed, and now we're returning 
with from bd_claim_by_kobject() with the bd_claim() done, but with an 
error return (so the caller will _not_ call "bd_release()", and the 
block_device will forever stay exclusive).

No?

Now, exactly why acpi stops working as a result, I don't know, but maybe 
something else tries to get exclusive access to a swap partition, for 
example, and now fails, causing some acpi sequence to not be set up? 
Dunno.

So I suspect it should be reverted, but maybe somebody can see exactly 
what goes wrong here.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/