[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <497494BB.3080800@steeleye.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:56:59 -0500
From: Paul Clements <paul.clements@...eleye.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
CC: kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: nbd: add locking to nbd_ioctl
Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> On Fri 2009-01-16 10:24:06, Paul Clements wrote:
>> lo->sock is only modified under tx_lock (except for SET_SOCK, where the
>> device is being initialized, in which case it's impossible for any other
>> thread to be accessing the device)
>
> Well, unless the user is evil or confused? :-).
Even in that case, you're just going to get EBUSY. Nothing bad will
happen. SET_SOCK checks for lo->file, so it cannot be called on an
active nbd device.
>> As for other fields, I assume you're talking about blksize, et al.
>> Taking tx_lock doesn't prevent you from screwing yourself if you modify
>> those while the device is active. You'd need to disallow those ioctls
>> when the device is active (check lo->file). Again, this is only going to
>> happen if you really misuse the ioctls.
>
> Ok, I'll take a look at the missing checks. I'd really like to make
> this "stable" -- no amount of misuse should crash the kernel.
Just to summarize, I don't think we need to hold tx_lock around the
entirety of nbd_ioctl. We do need one extra tx_lock around xmit_timeout
and we do need to check for lo->file and return EBUSY in all of the
SET_*SIZE* ioctls.
Thanks,
Paul
--
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