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  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]
Date:	Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:04:03 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...et.ca>,
	Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/13] sysfs: Protect sysfs_refresh_inode with inode mutex.

Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> In general everything that writes to vfs inodes holds the
>> inode mutex, so hold the inode mutex over sysfs_refresh_inode.
>> The sysfs data structures don't need this but it looks like the
>> vfs might.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>
> Sidenote: Hmmm... Originally, sysfs completely depended on vfs locking
> but with sysfs_dirent separation, the tree structure itself and some
> attributes went under the protection of sysfs_mutex while leaving more
> vfs oriented fields under vfs locking.  This patchset makes sysfs
> lazier so it can't depend on any vfs layer locking.  I think you've
> converted all necessary places while removing dependency on
> dentry/inode from update operations but it might be a good idea to do
> a audit pass over how fields are being protected now.

You raised a good point.  I took a quick second pass through.
I did not see anything I have missed, and I did not change anything
else on the vfs path.

So at the very least I don't expect there are any locking related
regressions.

Eric
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists