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]

Message-ID: <20120424222312.GA10665@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:23:12 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs and fs fixes

On Tue 24-04-12 15:52:36, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 01:15:17PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 18-04-12 00:44:24, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > Or I could increment that counter for all the conflicting operations and
> > > > > rely on it instead of the i_mutex. ?I was trying to avoid adding
> > > > > something like that (an inc, a dec, another error path) to every
> > > > > operation. ?And hoping to avoid adding another field to struct inode.
> > > > > Oh well.
> > > > 
> > > > We could just say that we can do a double inode lock, but then
> > > > standardize on the order. And the only sane order is comparing inode
> > > > pointers, not inode numbers like ext4 apparently does.
> > > > 
> > > > With a standard order, I don't think it would be at all wrong to just
> > > > take the inode lock on rename.
> > > 
> > > In principle, yes, but have you tried to grep for i_mutex?  Note that
> > > we have *another* place where multiple ->i_mutex might be held on
> > > non-directories (and unless I'm missing something, ext4 move_extent.c
> > > stuff doesn't play well with it): quota writes.  Which can, AFAICS,
> > > happen while write(2) is holding ->i_mutex on a regular file.  So
> > > it's not _that_ easy - we want something like "and quota file is goes
> > > last", since there we don't get to change the locking order - the first
> > > ->i_mutex is taken too far outside.
> >   Hum, I think I could just do away with quota file i_mutex being special.
> > It's used for two purposes:
> >   1) When quota is being turned on/off, we want to set/clear inode immutable
> > flag, truncate page cache, etc. But we should be able push this locking
> > outside of quota locks.
> >   2) Inside filesystems when quota file is written to. Quota writes are
> > serialized by quota code anyway and noone else has any bussiness with quota
> > files (they are marked as immutable to avoid mistakes) so there i_mutex is
> > not really needed.
> 
> Grepping for I_MUTEX_QUOTA shows hits in ext4, reiserfs, and gfs2.  The
> former two are in code called from the quota code (through the
> ->quota_write method).  But the gfs2 code appears to be called directly
> from gfs2's write code.
  Ah, gfs2 doesn't use generic quota code so whatever it does is it's own
invention. For ext4 and reiserfs I could get rid of I_MUTEX_QUOTA as I
wrote.

								Honza
--
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/