linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links

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: <2375c9f91002091914l6738a06eq5cba5f5fbf08976a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:14:13 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Américo Wang wrote:
>
>> > What happens for hard links such as writing to
>> > /sys/devices/block/xxx/queue/scheduler to change an I/O scheduler which
>> > requires sd->dep_map and sd->parent->dep_map in sysfs_get_active_two() to
>> > pin both?  The call to kobject_del() invokes the destruction that also
>> > requires sd->dep_map in sysfs_deactivate() because of the s_active lockdep
>> > annotation.
>> >
>>
>> This is not related with Neil's case at all.
>>
>> The I/O scheduler switch case should be a bogus, I am working on
>> it. We have more similar cases of cpu hotplug. Trust me, I am working
>> on a fix to all of them, this is not as easy as you may think about.
>>
>
> You should be able to reuse Neil's sysfs_dirent_init_lockdep(sd, type) to
> seperate the lock classes for the sd getting pinned in
> sysfs_get_active_two() from sysfs_deactivate(), although using subclasses
> would probably be optimal since there is a clear parent -> child relationship.

Yeah, basically, my fix is also adding a separate lockdep class, but
at a different
level. I will send the fix as soon as I finish 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/