linux-kernel - Re: hugetlb locking bug.

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: <1302901766.2035.39.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:09:26 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	William Irwin <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: hugetlb locking bug.

On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 16:57 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 01:49:04PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > And I really thought we annotated it as such with different
> > "lockdep_set_class()" cases (ie the whole
> > 
> >   lockdep_set_class(&inode->i_mutex,&type->i_mutex_dir_key);
> > 
> > for the S_ISDIR case in unlock_new_inode().
> > 
> > Can somebody more alert than me see why this lockdep issue still
> > triggers with hugetlbfs?
> 
> Because it doesn't use iget or unlock_new_inode, but rather calls
> directly into new_inode().  It and other filesystems not using
> unlock_new_inode will need a local copy of that logic.

Is there a sane reason they do their own magic, and thus need a copy of
the logic, instead of using the generic code that already has it?

--
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/