linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] vfs and fs fixes

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:	Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:01:48 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs and fs fixes

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>        A bunch of endianness fixes plus a patch from bfields untangling
> dependencies between vfs and nfsd trees; in principle, we could keep it
> in nfsd tree (along with a bunch of followups that definitely belong there),
> but Miklos' stuff in fs/namei.c steps fairly close to it and overlayfs
> and unionfs series - even closer, so that would create serious PITA for
> both, whichever tree it would sit in.

Why is that double mutex taking in vfs_rename_other() safe from ABBA?

We aren't guaranteed to hold the s_vfs_rename_mutex, since the parent
directories may be the same.

And yes, we hold the i_mutex on that shared parent, but the inodes may
exist (hardlinked) in another directory, so another rename could be
doing the i_mutex in the reverse order.

Maybe there is some reason why that double lock is safe, but I don't
see it, and I want it clearly documented. So I'm not pulling this.

                        Linus
--
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/