linux-kernel - RCU-isms in fs/nfs/delegation.c

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <14317.1271691185@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:33:05 +0100
From:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:	Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: RCU-isms in fs/nfs/delegation.c

I'm trying to redo my NFS RCU warning fixup patch on top of Paul's patches,
and I've found a small potential bug: nfs_inode_reclaim_delegation() doesn't
use the appropriate accessors/locks to protect NFS_I(inode)->delegation, and
nor does it use such to protect *delegation that I can see.  It just
overwrites the record.

Furthermore, for consistency's sake, it should also protect accesses to
delegation->cred within that function.

Trond: can you confirm that both NFS_I(inode)->delegation and delegation->cred
should be considered RCU-protected pointers?

David
--
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/