linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] BKL: Remove BKL from default

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: <20091118172730.GD28723@shareable.org>
Date:	Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:27:30 +0000
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux-Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, jkacur@...hat.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] BKL: Remove BKL from default_llseek()

Alan Cox wrote:
> > Using the BKL in llseek() does not protect the inode's i_size from
> > modification since the i_size is protected by a seqlock nowadays. Since
> > default_llseek() is already using the i_size_read() wrapper it is not the
> > BKL which is serializing the access here.
> > The access to file->f_pos is not protected by the BKL either since its
> > access in vfs_write()/vfs_read() is not protected by any lock. If the BKL
> > is not protecting anything here it can clearly get removed.
> 
> No. Your logic is flawed
> 
> The BKL is protected something here - it protects the change of offset
> with respect to other BKL users within drivers. The question is what if
> anything in any other driver code depends upon the BKL and uses it to
> protect f_pos. Probably very little if anything but a grep for f_pos
> through the drivers might not be a bad idea before assuming this. Very
> few touch f_pos except in their own llseek method.

Of course, drivers shouldn't be using f_pos outside their llseek
method, as they should all behave the same with pread/pwrite as with
llseek+read/write.

Is that mistaken?

-- Jamie
--
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/