linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: Remove BKL from remount() function in usbfs

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]

Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:54:37 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>
Cc:	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: Remove BKL from remount() function in usbfs

On Wednesday 31 March 2010, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> 
> The BKL was used into remount_fs pointed function for serialized access to
> super_block from the others super_operations functions.
> 
> The function update_sb(), invoked by remount(), seems already well serialized
> with &root->d_inode->i_mutex. Moreover don't seems there are others
> super_operations functions in USB core for usbfs that should access to
> super_block in a way which require BKL.

There is a patch from Jan Blunck pending in the bkl-removal tree that pushes
down the BKL into usbfs_fill_super. Can you confirm that this BKL usage does
not interfere with the one you just removed, and that it can go the same way?

	Arnd
--
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/