linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] incorrect error handling inside generic_file_direct

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]

Date:	Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:40:27 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@...ru>
Cc:	Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  incorrect error handling inside
 generic_file_direct_write

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:18:32 +0300
Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@...ru> wrote:

> >> but according to filemaps locking rules: mm/filemap.c:77
> >>  ..
> >>  *  ->i_mutex			(generic_file_buffered_write)
> >>  *    ->mmap_sem		(fault_in_pages_readable->do_page_fault)
> >>  ..
> >> I'm confused a litle bit, where is the truth? 
> >
> > xfs_write() calls generic_file_direct_write() without taking i_mutex for
> > O_DIRECT writes.
> Yes, but my quastion is about __generic_file_aio_write_nolock().
> As i understand _nolock sufix means that i_mutex was already locked 
> by caller, am i right ?

Nope.  It just means that __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() doesn't take
the lock.  We don't assume or require that the caller took it.  For example
the raw driver calls generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without taking
i_mutex.  Raw isn't relevant to the problem (although ocfs2 might be).  But
we cannot assume that all callers have taken i_mutex, I think.

I guess we can make that a rule (document it, add
BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(..)) if it isn't a blockdev) if needs be.  After
really checking that this matches reality for all callers.

It's important, too - if we have an unprotected i_size_write() then the
seqlock can get out of sync due to a race and then i_size_read() locks up
the kernel.

-
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/