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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:57:06 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, bfields@...ldses.org, xfs-masters@....sgi.com Subject: Re: RFC: Fix f_flags races without the BKL On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:13:52AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Accesses to the f_flags field have always involved a read-modify-write > operation, and have always been racy in the absence of the BKL. The recent > BKL-removal work made this problem worse, but it has been there for a very > long time. The race is quite small, and, arguably, has never affected > anybody, but it's still worth fixing. > > After pondering for a while, I couldn't come up with anything better than a > global file->f_flags mutex. There's no point in bloating struct file with > a mutex just for this purpose; it's hard to imagine that there will be any > real contention for this lock. Rather than open coded mutex how about adding a few helpers to set and clear the flags and hide locking there? Not that your patch looks invasive.. Sam -- 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