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  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, 9 Jan 2010 01:54:19 +0000
From:	Al Viro <>
To:	Trond Myklebust <>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] NFS: Fix a potential deadlock in

On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 07:56:24PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> We cannot call nfs_invalidate_mapping() inside file->f_ops->mmap(), since
> this would cause us to grab the inode->i_mutex while already holding the
> current->mm->mmap_sem (thus causing a potential ABBA deadlock with the file
> write code, which can grab those locks in the opposite order).
> We can fix this situation for the mmap() system call by using the new
> mmap_pgoff() callback, which is called prior to taking the
> current->mm->mmap_sem mutex.
> We also add ensure that open() invalidates the mapping if the inode data is
> stale so that other users of mmap() (mainly the exec and uselib system
> calls) get up to date data too.
> +	status = nfs_revalidate_mapping(inode, file->f_mapping);
> +	if (status < 0)
> +		return status;
> +
> +	return generic_file_mmap_pgoff(file, addr, len, prot, flags, pgoff);

This is completely bogus.  Why do you need i_mutex for that and what
the <expletives> does that really prevent?  You might wait for a _loong_
time waiting for that mmap_sem, so what is really going on there?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists