linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix inconsistent lock state in inotify

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]

Message-Id: <1239823895.2562.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:31:35 -0400
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john@...nmccutchan.com,
	rlove@...ve.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix inconsistent lock state in inotify

On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 12:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:59:29 +0200
> Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > >> +++ b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c
> > >> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static struct inotify_kernel_event * kernel_event(s32 wd, u32 mask, u32 cookie,
> > >>                               rem = 0;
> > >>               }
> > >>
> > >> -             kevent->name = kmalloc(len + rem, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >> +             kevent->name = kmalloc(len + rem, GFP_NOFS);
> > >>               if (unlikely(!kevent->name)) {
> > >>                       kmem_cache_free(event_cachep, kevent);
> > >>                       return NULL;
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > This is in fact a false positive and we plan to fix it via lockdep
> > > annotation.
> > 
> > Well, I trust you on the "false positive", but a few line before there this:
> > 
> >   kevent = kmem_cache_alloc(event_cachep, GFP_NOFS);
> > 
> > so can kmem_cache_alloc also use GFP_KERNEL?
> 
> Yes, it looks that way.
> 
> umm, I think I'll merge your original patch as a reminder-to-self.
> If the problem doesn't get fixed in a better way for 2.6.30 then I
> might end up going with the GFP_NOFS approach.
> 
> But it's bad to weaken the memory allocation mode just to plug a lockdep
> warning.

I swear, I'm fighting with my machines trying to get one to work so I
can test my lockdep fix today (and found a separate oddity/bug in the
process)

-Eric

--
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/