| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:45:55 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com>
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 3:55 PM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.
Okay, sounds good.
> 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.
How should it be handled? We can't hold any lock while doing the VFS work.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists