linux-kernel - Re: RFC: Fix f_flags races without the BKL

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

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/