linux-kernel - Re: [patch] fs: aio fix rcu lookup

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]

Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:46:27 -0500
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fs: aio fix rcu lookup

Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:

> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
>
>>  But there's the second race I describe making it possible
>> for new IO to be created after io_destroy() has waited for all IO to
>> finish...
>
> Can't that be solved by introducing memory barriers around the accesses
> to ->dead?

Upon further consideration, I don't think so.

Given the options, I think adding the synchronize rcu to the io_destroy
path is the best way forward.  You're already waiting for a bunch of
queued I/O to finish, so there is no guarantee that you're going to
finish that call quickly.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/