linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] get_write_access()/deny_write_access() without inode->i

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: <20110620141548.GS11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:15:48 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Frantisek Hrbata <fhrbata@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] get_write_access()/deny_write_access() without
 inode->i_lock

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 03:21:44PM +0200, Frantisek Hrbata wrote:
> > +static inline int deny_write_access(struct file *file)
> > +{
> > +	struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> > +	int v, v1;
> > +	for (v = atomic_read(&inode->i_writecount); v <= 0; v = v1) {
> > +		v1 = atomic_cmpxchg(&inode->i_writecount, v, v + 1);
>                                                              ^^^^^
> Shouldn't i_writecount be decreased here. Looks like cut & paste problem to
> me.

Yes, it should and yes, it is.  Thanks for spotting...
--
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/