linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/18] fs: Protect inode->i_state with th einode->i

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: <20101016075709.GP19147@amd>
Date:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:57:09 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] fs: Protect inode->i_state with th einode->i_lock

On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:18:43AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 
> > Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set
> > before the inode was added to various lists and potentially
> > accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that
> > effect, right?
> 
> Yes, please.

This is due to i_lock not covering all the icache state of the inode,
so you have to make these synchronisation changes like this.

I much prefer such proposals to go at the end of my series, where I
will probably nack them (and use rcu instead if the remaining trylocks
are such a big issue).

--
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/