linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/8] exofs: remove lock/unlock super

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:	Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:15:05 +0300
From:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To:	<dedekind1@...il.com>
CC:	Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>, <bhalevy@...ian.com>,
	<jack@...e.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <tytso@....edu>,
	<hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>, <mikulas@...ax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, <hch@...radead.org>,
	<dushistov@...l.ru>, <osd-dev@...n-osd.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] exofs: remove lock/unlock super

On 08/16/2012 04:10 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:32 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> On 08/16/2012 03:20 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 12:00 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>>>> From: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
>>>>
>>>> Remove lock and unlock super operation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you sure? It used to be that exofs_sync_fs() could be called
>> concurrently.
>>
>> What about two "bash -c sync" calls or a sync and an unmount
>> in parallel. anything protecting that?
>>
>> If so then sure, but please let me test first.
> 
> Umm, actually we will probably end up writing the same twice without the
> lock. 
> 


No we are not allowed to run exofs_sync_fs() concurrently because it uses
a per-alllocated scratch buffer to do it's stuff so you can end up with data
corruption on disk.

And we cannot use a spin-lock because we might sleep in ore_write()

There are some optimizations I can do here, but lets for now just do
the sb->s_lock thing, and I might decide to completely revamp the
all thing later.

Thanks
Boaz
--
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/