linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - fix get_next_positive

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: <CA+55aFwCESHx0d+ZEe-zi3PS6mkMaMng75Dnfit93cTwhb5gSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2012 19:53:49 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com>
Cc:	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	autofs mailing list <autofs@...ux.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - fix get_next_positive_subdir()

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> The locking for the list traversal in get_next_positive_subdir() is
> wrong, so fix it.

As an explanation, this kind of thing is totally useless. It doesn't
actually give any information at all. It's like saying "change
locking"

What happened, and why? Why is the new nested spinlock ok and won't
deadlock against other nested users? Wazzup?

                 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/