linux-kernel - Re: [Bug 3.4.5] reiserfs: mutex_destroy called with locked mutex

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]

Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:25:02 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@...nline.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 3.4.5] reiserfs: mutex_destroy called with locked mutex

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 09:26:57AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> So I don't think the freeing code could trigger, but a concurrent
>> lookup then trying to look up the new directory (and taking the new
>> directory i_semaphore lock) could happen, afaik.
>
> Umm...  The thing is, we'd get WARN_ON() in iput_final() triggering in
> that scenario before lockdep could complain.

Not for the "look up directory in the dcache, and then lock that
inode" case, afaik. You'd get the lock before iput_final(), no?

So then "unlock_new_inode()" would run with the inode mutex held,
which could explain the lockdep warning, no?

             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/