linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH vfs-2.6:for-next] vfs: remount

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, 6 May 2009 02:26:30 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LFSDEV <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH vfs-2.6:for-next] vfs: remount_fs BKL pushdown

On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 04:51:38AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> Actually, I'm not sure that you are right.  Especially if we go for your
> "always hold s_umount for sync_filesystem()"; in that case we are guaranteed
> that we'll have an exclusion between ->write_super() and that sucker, so
> there's no reason to push it down into filesystems that do not use lock_super()

The interesting cases are locking against internal s_lock which at least
extN needs or ->write_super.  And I'd really be rather safe than sorry
and audit individual filesystems than introducing bug in an obscure one.
--
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/