linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove BKL from the bfs driver

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]

Date:	Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:11:47 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Vorobiev Dmitri" <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi>
To:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Dmitri Vorobiev" <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi>,
	tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove BKL from the bfs driver

> On Thu,  5 Jun 2008 21:26:35 +0300
> Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.fi> wrote:
>
>> This removes quite a few instances of BKL usage in the bfs
>> driver. Given the purpose and the user base of this driver,
>> I do not believe that a finer-granularity lock than the big
>> fat filesystem-wide mutex I have implemented here is needed.
>
> How well tested was this?  With lockdep enabled?
>

Frankly speaking, I performed just some basic tests like mounting
a BFS partition, creating a few files on it, reading and writing
files, unmounting the partition, etc. Yes, lockdep was enabled.

> Because the new mutex cannot be taken recursively, whereas the BKL can.
> And there's potential for ab/ba deadlocks with, for example, i_mutex.
>
> However I don't see any such problems from a moderately intensive
> review.

OK, thank you for the review and for picking up the patches.

Dmitri
--
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/