linux-kernel - Re: xfs mr_lock vs mmap

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090717150922.GA434@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:09:22 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: xfs mr_lock vs mmap_sem lock inversion?

It's a problem in the VM code, which we already discussed a while
ago.  The problem is that the VMA manipultation code calls fput
under the mmap_sem, while we can take mmap_sem ue to a page fault
from inside generic_file_aio_read/write.  So any filesystem
that nees the same lock held over read/write also in release is
crewed.

Now on the positive side I think we can actually get rid of taking
the iolock in ->release in XFS, but I'm sure other filesystems
might continue hitting similar issues.

--
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/