linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] udf: Remove unnecessary bkl usages

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: <20101106180639.GC13315@infradead.org>
Date:	Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:06:39 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] udf: Remove unnecessary bkl usages

On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 06:47:09PM +0100, Alessio Igor Bogani wrote:
> The udf_lookup, udf_create, udf_mknod, udf_mkdir, udf_rmdir, udf_link,
> udf_unlink and udf_readdir functions seems already adequately protected
> by i_mutex held by VFS invoking calls. The udf_rename function instead
> should be already protected by lock_rename again by VFS.
> 
> The udf_get_parent, udf_count_free_bitmap, udf_count_free_table and
> udf_put_super functions don't require any protection.

This looks correct to me.  But I'd suggest to reorder it to be the last
patch in the series, after the fine grained locking for the low level
code has been in place.

--
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/