linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: zram: fix zram locking

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E681BC9.4010901@vflare.org>
Date:	Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:35:05 -0400
From:	Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>
To:	Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
CC:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: zram: fix zram locking

On 09/06/2011 09:02 AM, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> Currently init_lock only prevents concurrent execution of zram_init_device()
> and zram_reset_device() but not zram_make_request() nor sysfs store functions.
>

zram_make_request() initializes the device first time it is used and 
from then on no sysfs config writes are allowed till the device is reset 
-- for example, you cannot change disksize while a disk is in 
initialized state. So, I could not understand why we need to protect 
zram_make_request vs sysfs stores.

Thanks,
Nitin



--
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/