| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1181776021.21924.87.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:07:01 -0700 From: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mark.fasheh@...cle.com, ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, cmm@...ibm.com Subject: Re: + fs-introduce-write_begin-write_end-and-perform_write-aops.patch added to -mm tree On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 13:43 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: .. > > > 5) ext3_write_end: > > Before write_begin/write_end patch set we have folowing locking > > order: > > stop_journal(handle); > > unlock_page(page); > > But now order is oposite: > > unlock_page(page); > > stop_journal(handle); > > Can we got any race condition now? I'm not sure is it actual problem, > > may be somebody cant describe this. > > Can we just change it to the original order? That would seem to be > safest unless one of the ext3 devs explicitly acks it. It would be nice to go back to original order, but its not that simple with current structure of the code. With Nick's patches unlock_page() happens in generic_write_end(). journal_stop() needs to happen after generic_write_end(). :( Mingming, can you take a look at the current & proposed order ? I ran into bunch of races when I tried to change the order for ->writepages() support earlier :( Thanks, Badari - 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