linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring _

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: <20120628164539.GA26350@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:45:39 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	". James Morris" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Was: deferring __fput()

Forgot to mention...

And I still think that task_work_add() should not succeed unconditionally,
it synchronize with exit_task_work(). Otherwise keyctl_session_to_parent()
is broken.

On 06/28, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/28, Al Viro wrote:
> >
> > The list removal logics in mine looks really ugly ;-/
>
> Basically the code is almost the same as mine.
>
> But task_work_add() can be simplified a bit, no need to check
> last != NULL twice.
>
> 	last = task->task_works ?: twork;
> 	task->last_twork = twork;
> 	twork->next = last->next;	/* XXX */
> 	last->next = twork;
>
> If ->task_works == NULL, then XXX is meaningless but safe.
>
> Oleg.

--
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/