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: <20130819133503.1a793ecbfa99c1b0814bbb57@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:35:03 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: allow umount to handle mountpoints without
 revalidating them

On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:23:25 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:

> Christopher reported a regression where he was unable to unmount a NFS
> filesystem where the root had gone stale. The problem is that
> d_revalidate handles the root of the filesystem differently from other
> dentries, but d_weak_revalidate does not. We could simply fix this by
> making d_weak_revalidate return success on IS_ROOT dentries, but there
> are cases where we do want to revalidate the root of the fs.
> 
> A umount is really a special case. We generally aren't interested in
> anything but the dentry and vfsmount that's attached at that point. If
> the inode turns out to be stale we just don't care since the intent is
> to stop using it anyway.
> 
> Try to handle this situation better by treating umount as a special
> case in the lookup code. Have it resolve the parent using normal
> means, and then do a lookup of the final dentry without revalidating
> it. In most cases, the final lookup will come out of the dcache, but
> the case where there's a trailing symlink or !LAST_NORM entry on the
> end complicates things a bit.
> 

In which kernel version did the regression occur?  The patch *applies*
to 3.8 and perhaps earlier, but we don't know which kernel versions
actually need it.
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ