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: <4A66630C.3030303@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:53:32 +0800
From:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC:	Zefan Li <lizf.kernel@...il.com>, Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@...hat.com>,
	menage@...gle.com, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: fix reverse unlock sequence in cgroup_get_sb

>>> Seems reasonable to me. You might also want to mention that elsewhere
>>> the sequence is unlock cgroup_mutex followed by inode->i_mutex.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Balbir Singh balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
>>
>> No, the unlock order is irrelevant. It's the lock order that matters. So
>> this patch
>> fixes nothing.
>>
>> Xiaotian, you didn't run into deadlock, did you?
>>
> 
> 
> Li, Consider the following
> 
> 
> lock(A)
> lock(B)
> unlock(A) 
> unlock(B)
> 
> Tomorrow if a unsuspecting programmer does this
> 
> lock(A)
> lock(B)
> unlock(A) 
> 
> code block 
> 
> unlock(B)
> 
> 
> What protects code block? lock B? Is that the intention?
> 

I won't worry about that. If unlock order is a concern,
we should have taught lockdep to detect it.

Here's a reply from Linus on this issue:

	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/8/150
--
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/