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:	Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:18:53 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] fs: aio fix rcu lookup

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think synchronize_rcu() is not something to sprinkle around outside
very slow paths. It can be done without synchronize_rcu.
--
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/