linux-kernel - Re: [CFT] 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+55aFxhPXvpPQcCvY7xRMWwsHGNoOdzpdZw7zJbR5-_QDW1tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:19:21 -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: [CFT] Re: VFS deadlock ?

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> So why not just use "new_inode_pseudo()" instead? IOW, something like
> this (totally untested, natch) patch?

Ok, so I think that patch is still probably the right way to go, but
it's broken for a silly reason: because it's not using iget_locked()
any more, it also needs to remove the now unnecessary (and actively
incorrect) call to unlock_new_inode().

So remove that one line too, and maybe it could even work. Still not
*tested*, though.

              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/