linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] Use f_lock to protect f

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:	Sun, 8 Feb 2009 10:02:20 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Use f_lock to protect f_flags

On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 01:06:55PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Traditionally, changes to struct file->f_flags have been done under BKL
> protection, or with no protection at all.  This patch causes all f_flags
> changes after file open/creation time to be done under protection of
> f_lock.  This allows the removal of some BKL usage and fixes a number of
> longstanding (if microscopic) races.

Looks good to me.


Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

One comments only tangentially related to the patch:


> diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_io.c b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> index bc84e12..224f271 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> @@ -2162,13 +2162,12 @@ static int fionbio(struct file *file, int __user *p)
>  	if (get_user(nonblock, p))
>  		return -EFAULT;
>  
> -	/* file->f_flags is still BKL protected in the fs layer - vomit */
> -	lock_kernel();
> +	spin_lock(&file->f_lock);
>  	if (nonblock)
>  		file->f_flags |= O_NONBLOCK;
>  	else
>  		file->f_flags &= ~O_NONBLOCK;
> -	unlock_kernel();
> +	spin_unlock(&file->f_lock);
>  	return 0;
>  }

Why is this code there at all?  It's a duplicate of
fs/ioctl.c:ioctl_fionbio minus the sparc special case, and from looking
at the flow in fs/ioctl.c I'm pretty sure FIONBIO never gets handed to
the chardev ioctl methods..

--
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/