[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101030062147.GA16697@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:21:47 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: audit_tree: sleep inside atomic
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 04:08:25PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 17:05 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:52:30 +0200
> > Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ideas, comments?
> >
> > Apparently not.
>
> Sorry, I've been slacking off on vacation the last couple weeks.
>
> > The question is: why is nobody reporting this bug? Obviously nobody's
> > running that code path. Why not?
>
> The only people who run this code path, that I know of, are govt orgs
> who run in certified environments. I don't know of any upstream kernel
> users who really would hit it.
>
> In any case I don't think it would be particularly painful to just
> always allocate a chunk between the two locks. this is not a hot path
> by any stretch of the imagination. I'll see if I can't code something
> up today/tomorrow.
It's not even a matter of path being hot; we should do allocation before
grabbing entry->lock if size is non-zero. End of the story.
Fixed in audit branch I'll push today.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists