linux-kernel - Re: [Patch] pipe: use file_update_time() when hold i

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1248174580.28516.595.camel@tucsk>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:09:40 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
To:	Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Patch] pipe: use file_update_time() when hold i_mutex

On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 18:07 +0800, Amerigo Wang wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 01:35:30 -0400
> > Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> file_update_time() should be called with i_mutex held,
> >> move it before mutex_unlock().
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > Why do you believe that file_update_time() needs i_mutex?
> >   
> file_update_time() modifies inode, no? :)

So does touch_atime(), yet neither needs i_mutex.

But calling file_update_time() within the locked region in pipe_write()
might make sense regardless: that way a task waiting for data would be
guaranteed to see the time change after receiving a POLLIN event for
example.

Thanks,
Miklos


--
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/