linux-kernel - Re: splice vs execve lockdep trace.

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: <20130716032841.GB1578@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:28:41 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ben Myers <bpm@....com>,
	xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: splice vs execve lockdep trace.

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 08:25:14PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 
 
 > And looking more at that, I'm actually starting to think this is an
 > XFS locking problem. XFS really should not call back to splice while
 > holding the inode lock.
 > 
 > But that XFS code doesn't seem new either. Is XFS a new thing for you
 > to test with?

I started pounding on it fairly recently and have shook out a number
of bugs (now fixed) since I started, so relatively new, but on the order of 'months' now.

	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/