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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:21:47 +0200
From:	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
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

Mr Bergmann,

2010/3/31 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
[...]
>> 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?

I can confirm that this certainly interfere: So please ignore my patch.

I'll elaborate a new patch when Blunck's works is merged.

Thanks!

Ciao,
Alessio
--
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/