linux-kernel - Re: VFS deadlock ?

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: <CA+55aFyWNkOnrQ41xCAU8q5sVXdq1-u2P8n+quLY50OdiFo3Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:01:49 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: VFS deadlock ?

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> So yes, it's against the rules, and we get that deadlock right now,
> but one solution would be to just allow this particular case. The
> patch for the deadlock looks dead simple:

It should go without saying that that whitespace-damaged patch is
entirely untested. But especially since we need to back-port whatever
fix, it would be good if we could make the fix be something as simple
as this. Because I don't believe we really want to backport some big
network-namespace reorganization.

This is, of course, all assuming that hardlinked directories are ok if
we can just guarantee the absence of loops. If there's some other
reason why they'd be problematic, we're screwed.

        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/