linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

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]

Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:14:39 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, hch@...radead.org,
	corbet@....net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

On 01/27, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:56:46 +0100
> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:32:49PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 06:51:04AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > OK, replacing a lock_kernel() with a spin_lock(&global_lock) is pretty
> > > > straightforwad.  But it's really really sad.  It basically leaves a great
> > > > big FIXME in there.  It'd be better to fix it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Umm, we've been discussiong this in and out a guestimated million times.
> > >
> > > Let's go forward with Jon's patch which is on obvious improvement and
> > > if it shows problems later on we can revisit it.
> >
> > The point was that we already have a better patch from Oleg.
> >
>
> Where is this patch?

I didn't send the actual patch. The idea is,

	can't we use O_LOCK_FLAGS bit? I agree, it is a bit ugly,
	and I won't insist if you don't like is.

		static inline int try_lock_f_flags(struct file *file)
		{
			return !test_and_set_bit(O_LOCK_FLAGS, file->f_flags);
		}

		static inline set_f_flags(struct file *file, unsigned int flags)
		{
			file->f_flags = flags & ~O_LOCK_FLAGS;
		}

	Now, nobody should change ->f_flags directly (except create/open
	pathes. For example, ioctl_fionbio() should be changed:

			if (try_lock_f_flags(filp)) {
				if (on)
					set_f_flags(filp, filp->f_flags | flag);
				else
					set_f_flags(filp, filp->f_flags & ~flag);
			}

	If try_lock_f_flags() fails we do nothing, as if the current owner of
	O_LOCK_FLAGS changes ->f_flags after us.

and, from another message,

	No need to disable preemption, we never spin waiting for the
	lock bit. If it is locked - somebody else updates ->f_flags,
	we can pretend it does this after us. This can confuse F_GETFL
	after F_SETFL (if F_SETFL "fails"), but I think in that case
	user-space is wrong anyway, it must not do F_GETFL in parallel.

I'll try to make the patch tomorrow, but the problem is that I am not
sure this is not too ugly. At least Jonathan dislikes this approach,
and I do understand him ;)

Oleg.

--
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/