linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] more vfs.git stuff

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: <20130509203428.GI25399@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Thu, 9 May 2013 21:34:29 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] more vfs.git stuff

On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 09:28:15PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> The only place checking that sucker is in a fairly large area protected by
> ->b_lock (in mon_bin_event()); I really don't want to dig deep enough to
> tell if having it changed right after it had been checked is safe.  OTOH,
> from a cursory look through that code it appears that the whole map_count
> thing is completely misguided - it seems to assume that ->open() is called for
> each VMA, including the one created by mmap(2).  Sigh...

Less cursory one shows that they do call their ->open() from their ->mmap().
OTOH, the code looking and ->mmap_active looks fishy - what happens if we
do allocation before mmap() happens?

Anyway, let's just drop that commit for now; it clearly needs more RTFS.
Could you pull for-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/