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: <20130130212417.GJ24014@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:24:18 -0500
From:	David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@...hat.com>,
	cluster-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/14] dlm: don't use idr_remove_all()

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:13:17AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:57:23AM -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:31:08PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > idr_destroy() can destroy idr by itself and idr_remove_all() is being
> > > deprecated.
> > > 
> > > The conversion isn't completely trivial for recover_idr_clear() as
> > > it's the only place in kernel which makes legitimate use of
> > > idr_remove_all() w/o idr_destroy().  Replace it with idr_remove() call
> > > inside idr_for_each_entry() loop.  It goes on top so that it matches
> > > the operation order in recover_idr_del().
> > > 
> > > Only compile tested.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > > Cc: Christine Caulfield <ccaulfie@...hat.com>
> > > Cc: David Teigland <teigland@...hat.com>
> > > Cc: cluster-devel@...hat.com
> > > ---
> > > This patch depends on an earlier idr patch and given the trivial
> > > nature of the patch, I think it would be best to route these together
> > > through -mm.  Please holler if there's any objection.
> > 
> > Yes, that's good for me.  I'll grab the set and test the dlm bits.
> 
> Hi Tejun,
> Unfortunately, the list_for_each_entry doesn't seem to be clearing
> everything.  I've seen "warning: recover_list_count 39" at the end of that
> function.

I don't want to pretend to understand the internals of this idr code, but
it's not clear that idr_for_each is equivalent to idr_for_each_entry when
iterating through all id values.  The "++id" in idr_for_each_entry looks
like it could lead to some missed entries?  The comment about idr_get_next
returning the "next number to given id" sounds like an entry with an id of
"++id" would be missed.

Dave
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ