linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ufs: fix deadlocks after mutex merge

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:	Tue, 2 Sep 2014 00:13:07 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>
Cc:	Evgeniy Dushistov <dushistov@...l.ru>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ufs: fix deadlocks after mutex merge

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:08:35AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> Your commit message makes no sense - ufs_evict_inode() is *never* called
> with that lock held, for one thing.  I agree that "ufs: sb mutex merge +
> mutex_destroy" was been badly broken and apparently never tested, though -
> the bugs are real.
> 
> 	Please, write a saner commit message; what happens is that
> ufs_{new,free}_inode() take the damn lock themselves these days, so
> their caller shouldn't do that.

PS: after rereading your mail, I see what you meant to say, but it really
wasn't clear enough.  The crucial part is that the lock is *always* taken
by free/new, not that some of the callers take it and some do not.
--
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/