linux-kernel - Re: [NFS] 2.6.17.8 - do_vfs_lock: VFS is out of sync with lock manager!

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:39:21 +1100
From:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To:	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Cc:	"Trond Myklebust" <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	nfs@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [NFS] 2.6.17.8 - do_vfs_lock: VFS is out of sync with lock manager!

On Wednesday January 31, jesper.juhl@...il.com wrote:
> On 29/01/07, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no> wrote:
> 
> Finally getting that in will be sooooo nice :-)  Thank you.
> 
> Btw: any reason why not to include the
>   fl->fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP;
> bit as well?  As in http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/27/41  ??
> 

Uhmm... I guess I had forgotten it ....

Looking again, I cannot convince myself that it is needed.
The comment says "If we were signalled ...", and if we were signalled
then do_vfs_lock won't block anyway.  I think I was probably being
over-cautious as I didn't know the significance of testing for
-ERESTARTSYS.
However it seems to only get returned if a signal is pending (so why
EINTR isn't returned I still don't know) so a signal must be pending
on that piece of code, so there is no need to clear FL_SLEEP.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
-
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/