linux-kernel - Re: vfs-scale, general questions (Re: NFS root lockups with -next 20110113)

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: <1297396169.3844.11.camel@perseus>
Date:	Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:49:29 +0800
From:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: vfs-scale, general questions (Re: NFS root lockups with -next
 20110113)

On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 15:43 +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Nick Piggin:
> > Thanks for your help, can you see how I've fixed it in my vfs-scale
> > tree? What do you think?
> 
> Your fix is great. I have no objection at all.
> Other than the fix, here are more generic questions about vfs-scale work.
> I am happy if you reply when you have time.
> 
> - getcwd(2) needs d_lock?
>   It acquires rename_lock and then tests whether the pwd is removed by
>   d_unhashed(). If a race condition between vfs_rename_dir() which may
>   unhash/rehash the dentry happens, then getcwd() may return the wrong
>   result due to unprotected d_unhashed() call, I am afraid. rename_lock
>   doesn't help this case.
> 
> - what is the right order of dget() and mntget()?
>   If I remember correctly, someone said "mntget() first and then
>   dget(). when putting, do in reverse" in the discussion when
>   path_{get,put}() were born. So it is called "the right order" in the
>   commit log.
>   It was many years ago. Is it still true? And should rcu-walk follow it
>   too? The current implementation doesn't seem to care about this order.

I didn't spot that, where did you see this?

I'm not sure about the get but I fairly sure the dput() has to be before
the mntput() because the shrink_dcache_*() cleanup routines object to
dentrys that have a reference count of more than one.

Ian


--
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/