linux-kernel - Re: hfsplus_unlink...hfsplus_block

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802281731520.2723@scrub.home>
Date:	Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:44:30 +0100 (CET)
From:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: hfsplus_unlink...hfsplus_block_free: lockdep warning

Hi,

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Is this merely a case for annotation?
> 
> Being utterly clueless on HFS, and not having had a look yet, I'd say
> its genuine. Esp. since the i_mutex lock class is per filesystem type.
> 
> So HFS has internal lock ordering problems, its not interaction with
> another filesystem - like we used to have with ext vs the pseudo
> filesystems.

Please look at the code before you get to such conclusions...
The allocation bitmap is very much organized like a normal file, so HFS+ 
treats it like a file (e.g. its data is in the page cache), this file is 
just not visible outside HFS+, so I used the inode lock to synchronize the 
access to it. The lock ordering should be fine, lockdep just doesn't know 
about it.

bye, Roman
--
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/