linux-kernel - Re: [patch] nfs: fix locking in nfs/inode.c in nfs_free_open

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]

Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:28:22 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To:	Christian Krafft <krafft@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] nfs: fix locking in nfs/inode.c in
	nfs_free_open_context

On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 17:08 +0200, Christian Krafft wrote:

> Obviously the locking code in nfs_free_open_context is wrong.
> Checking the list for entries and removing the entry should be an atomic operation.

Wrong. It is quite safe to test the structure member ctx->list for
emptiness outside the spinlock because we have an explicit guarantee
that nobody else has a reference to this structure, plus the
atomic_dec_and_test() in kref_put() has acted as a memory barrier for
us.

> Also list_del_init should be used, because list_del will leave the empty list in
> an undefined condition.

Huh? We're freeing the context. It will _never_ _ever_ _ever_ be used
again. If anything tries to use ctx->list after this, then that is a
major bug.

Patch rejected...

Trond

-
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/