linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] cuse: use mutex as registration lock instead of spinlocks

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:	Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:29:20 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...glemail.com>
Cc:	fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] cuse: use mutex as registration lock instead of
 spinlocks

Hello, David.

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:45:47PM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
> We need to check for name-collisions during cuse-device registration. To
> avoid race-conditions, this needs to be protected during the whole device
> registration. Therefore, replace the spinlocks by mutexes first so we can
> safely extend the locked regions to include more expensive or sleeping
> code paths.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...glemail.com>
> @@ -114,14 +113,18 @@ static int cuse_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	int rc;
>  
>  	/* look up and get the connection */
> -	spin_lock(&cuse_lock);
> +	rc = mutex_lock_interruptible(&cuse_lock);

Well, the above can't hurt but it doesn't help anything either given
the narrow scope of the lock.  Eh well, I guess it's okay either way.

Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/