linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fuse: hold i_mutex in fuse_file

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:15:44 +0400
From:	Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>
To:	Anand Avati <avati@...hat.com>
CC:	<miklos@...redi.hu>, <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	<bfoster@...hat.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devel@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: hold i_mutex in fuse_file_fallocate()

Anand, Brian,

06/12/2013 11:04 PM, Anand Avati пишет:
> On 6/11/13 3:59 AM, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
>
>> -    if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) {
>> +    if (lock_inode)
>>           mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>
>> +    if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE)
>>           fuse_set_nowrite(inode);
>> -    }
>
> Just for clarity, can you make the condition to check 
> FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE and call to fuse_set_nowrite() nested within the 
> larger if (lock_inode) { .. } block? fuse_set_nowrite() should not be 
> called without i_mutex acquired. The current style of calling 
> mutex_lock() and fuse_set_nowrite() in separate conditions can 
> potentially cause bugs in the future if they were to get re-ordered 
> due to some unrelated patch. Nesting them makes the relation more 
> explicit and clear.

Thanks a lot for review. I'll post updated patch soon.

Thanks,
Maxim

--
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/