linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF

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: <465F09E7.7000300@sandeen.net>
Date:	Thu, 31 May 2007 12:46:15 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF

Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:

> Eric, could you please try the following:
> 
> 1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as
> 
> 	DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock);
> 
> 2) replace in udf_drop_inode()
> 
> 	kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock);
> 	kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock);
> 
> I'm not sure if it help but you may try ;)
> 
> 		Cyrill
> 

I'm sure it'll avoid the deadlock but....

Any sense of what the BKL is actually trying to protect in this case?

Is it really only trying to prevent concurrent prealloc-discarders, or 
is there more?

-Eric
-
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/