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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4A66DA2E.90601@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:21:50 +0800
From:	Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
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

Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 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.
>   
Yes?

Then how the inode is protected when file_update_time() modifies
it?

Thanks.

--
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/