linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i

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]

Message-Id: <1222096454.8533.18.camel@nimitz>
Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:14:14 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i_mutex

On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 17:12 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> It's not immediately obvious why two such similar functions needed
> two such dissimilar patches; and we'd all (Nick, Matt and I) prefer
> to restore the similarity, especially now the tiny-shmem.c variant
> has shown a locking problem.  Do you see any reason against that?

The only reason I diverged them was that I was trying to encourage the
use of alloc_file() and discourage the use of init_file() due to some
guidance from Christoph H.

But, you're certainly right, being able to find bugs between the two
implementations certainly trumps that, so I see no reason not to reunify
them.

-- Dave

--
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/