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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:01:46 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix possible leakage of blocks in UDF [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700] [...snip...] | | No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock | within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already called | under inode_lock. | | It has nothing to do with lock_kernel() and it has nothing to do with | sleeping. | Andrew, the only call that could leading to subseq. inode_lock lock is mark_inode_dirty() I guess (and that is snown by Eric's dump) but as I shown you in my dbg print without SMP it's OK. So is it SMP who lead to lock? How it depends on it? (I understand that is a stupid question for you but if you have time explain me this please ;) Cyrill - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists