linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/11] fuse: Trust kernel i

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]

Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:22:42 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>
Cc:	dev@...allels.com, xemul@...allels.com,
	fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, bfoster@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jbottomley@...allels.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	fengguang.wu@...el.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] fuse: Trust kernel i_mtime only -v2

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 07:41:41PM +0400, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
> >>+
> >>+	if (!err)
> >>+		clear_bit(FUSE_I_MTIME_DIRTY, &fi->state);
> >Doing the test and the clear separately opens a huge race window when i_mtime
> >modifications are bound to get lost.
> 
> No. Because the whole operation is protected by i_mutex (see
> fuse_fsync_common()).

fuse_release_common() doesn't have i_mutex.  It's probably safe to acquire it,
but is that really needed?

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/