linux-kernel - Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F

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: <20070510202313.GV13719@fieldses.org>
Date:	Thu, 10 May 2007 16:23:13 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Doug Chapman <doug.chapman@...com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	Marc Eshel <eshel@...aden.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: post 2.6.21 regression in F_GETLK

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:38:59PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:30:50PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 02:56:15PM -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> > > A recent regression (introduced after 2.6.21) was caught by the LTP test
> > > fcntl11.  It appears that F_GETLK is not properly checking for existing
> > > F_RDLCK and allows taking out a write lock.

Hm, actually, could you double-check the test results?  Looking at your
test case, it appears that it fails when the lock returned from the
fcntl(.,F_GETLK,.) has an l_type != F_RDLCK.  That doesn't necessarily
mean the F_GETLK is reporting no conflict.  I believe the bug is
actually that it's reporting the wrong kind of conflict--so it's
returning l_type == F_WRLCK, not F_UNLCK.

Also, this affects only F_GETLK, not F_SETLK, so you're not actually
managing to acquire a conflicting lock, right?

--b.
-
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/