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: <1340974925.2309.13.camel@falcor>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:02:05 -0400
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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()

On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 09:33 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 01:30:38AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 05:38 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:37:21PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 06/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And if it always takes ->pi_lock we do not need the new PF_ or something
> > > > > else, exit_task_work() can set task->task_works = NO_MORE under ->pi_lock
> > > > > (task_work_run() can check PF_EXITING), and task_work_add() ensures that
> > > > > task_works != NO_MORE.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > 
> > > > It is not clear to me if you agree or not. So I am simply sending the
> > > > patches I have.
> > > > 
> > > > Feel free to ignore or re-do.
> > > > 
> > > > Seriously, why should we add 2 pointers into task_struct? Sure, this
> > > > is minor, but still... But perhaps task_work.c should not play tricks
> > > > with the circular list, task_work_run() can reverse the list as you
> > > > initially suggested.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, I am not sure about "define rcu_head callback_head", this series
> > > > doesn't do this. But again, up to you.
> > > 
> > > Umm...  FWIW, my variant circa yesterday is in vfs.git#untested; it seems to survive
> > > on uml/amd64 at least.  I'll look through your patches and see what can be nicked.
> > > The list removal logics in mine looks really ugly ;-/
> > 
> > Still failing to boot.  Fails to boot starting with commit "b24dfa6
> > switch fput to task_work_add".
> 
> Details, please...  .config, root fs type, etc.  Failed execve() of init is, unfortunately,
> not too informative...

In addition to failing with my tailored .config (eg. IMA, TPM builtin),
it fails with config-3.4.2-1.fc16.x86_64, with new default options,
running on a Lenovo W520.

/dev/sda7 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,seclabel,i_version,data=ordered)

Mimi

--
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/