linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: protect inode->i_state with inode->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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:58:26 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: protect inode->i_state with inode->i_lock

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 03:23:01PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>  	spin_lock(&inode_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> -		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW))
> +		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> +		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) {
> +			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>  			continue;
> +		}
> +		spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>  		if (inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0)
>  			continue;
>  		__iget(inode);

If you want to remove inode_lock from the lru scanning later you already
need to extend i_lock coverage to include __iget here.  Otherwise we
could race to mark the inode as I_FREEING or I_WILL_FREE before we
grabbed a reference after your patchset. 
--
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/