linux-kernel - Re: race in sysfs between sysfs_remove

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: <20061211104306.GA22628@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:13:06 +0530
From:	Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc:	Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>, <gregkh@...e.com>,
	<linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: race in sysfs between sysfs_remove_file() and read()/write() #2

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:06:41AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> 
> > hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
> > the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
> > fail the removal then your patch is the way to go.
> >
> > Greg?
> 
> Oliver is right that we cannot allow device_remove_file() to fail.  In
> fact we can't even allow it to block until all the existing open file
> references are closed.
> 
> Our major questions have to do with the details of the patch itself.  In
> particular, we are worried about possible races with the VFS and the
> handling of the inode's usage count.  Can you examine the patch carefully
> to see if it is okay?
> 

Sorry for late reply.. I reviewed the patch and it looks ok me.

Thanks
Maneesh
-
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/