linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix reverse unlock sequence in cgroup_get

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: <6599ad830907210903q7206cac2l83a9139d19c5e1a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:03:01 -0700
From:	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To:	Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>
Cc:	lizf@...fujitsu.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix reverse unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Xiaotian Feng<dfeng@...hat.com> wrote:
> In cgroup_get_sb, the lock sequence is:
>        mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>        mutex_lock(&cgroup->mutex);
> so the last unlock sequence should be:

Make this "so for consistency the last ..." ?

Maybe make the patch title "Make unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb
consistent" so someone looking through the change logs for fixes to
backport doesn't wrongly thing that this fixes any bug"?

>        mutex_unlock(&cgroup->mutex);
>        mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>

Acked-by: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>

Paul
--
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/