linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] pstore: pass allocated memory region back to caller

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:	Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:55:20 -0800
From:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pstore: pass allocated memory region back to caller

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> Since pstore's buf_lock cannot be held while doing the VFS population,
> these patches make it the backend's responsibility to pass up an allocated
> buffer instead during reads.

The split into three parts is good for review purposes - but I'll
squish them all together
into one commit to avoid breaking bisectability.

I'm trying to work out whether I should be worried about the removal
of the locks
around the:

   (*open)(...)
   while (size = (*read)(...)) {
   }
   (*close)()

section in pstore_get_records().  If someone tries to simultaneously mount
pstore in multiple places - will the upper level mount code serialize? I don't
think the backends will be happy if multiple callers execute that at the same
time.

-Tony
--
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/