linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - use simple_empty() for empty directory check

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1353119341.2338.1.camel@perseus.themaw.net>
Date:	Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:29:01 +0800
From:	Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	autofs mailing list <autofs@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - use simple_empty() for empty directory check

On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 17:34 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 08:43:28AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, are you recommending I alter the fs/libfs.c functions to add a
> > > function that doesn't have the outer lock, and have simple_empty() call
> > > that, then use it in autofs?
> > 
> > Yup. That's the standard pattern, although usually we *strive* to make
> > the unlocked versions be static to the internal code, and then use
> > them there for the various helpers. In your case that seems
> > impossible, since you do depend on holding the d_lock in the caller
> > after the tests. But at least we don't have to duplicate the code and
> > have it in two unrelated places.
> > 
> > Al? Comments?
> 
> The thing is, I'm not convinced we really need ->d_lock held downstream.
> E.g.  __autofs4_add_expiring() ought to be OK with just sbi->lookup_lock.
> Not sure about the situation in autofs4_d_automount() - the thing is messy
> as hell ;-/
> 
> Ian, do we really need that __simple_empty() variant in either caller?  What
> is getting protected by ->d_lock after it and do we really need ->d_lock
> continuously held for that?

Yeah, I've thought about that a few times now but haven't gone so far as
to change it.

I'll have another look.

Ian


--
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/