| 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 May 2012 12:53:18 +0200 From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> To: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko <phcoder@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix AFFS race condition. On Mon 14-05-12 12:40:45, Marco Stornelli wrote: > 2012/5/14 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>: > > On Sun 13-05-12 15:44:33, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > >> AFFS code preallocates several blocks as an optimisation. Unfortunately > >> it's not protected by lock so the same blocks may end up allocated twice. > >> Here is a fix. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Serbinenko <phcoder@...il.com> > > The patch looks good to me now. Thanks! You can add: > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> > > > > Al, will you merge this patch through your tree? AFFS does not seem to > > have a maintainer so you are a default fallback... > > > > Honza > > > > I don't know the AFFS code, so only a question. Instead to use a spin > lock, I think we can use a simple mutex. Or is the spin lock > mandatory? So what would be an advantage of a mutex? Spinlock *is* the simple locking variant... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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