linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] locks: remove i_have_this_lease check from __break

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: <20140904175132.GG16935@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 2014 10:51:32 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...marydata.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/17] locks: remove i_have_this_lease check from
 __break_lease

On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 08:38:39AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> I think that the intent of this code was to ensure that a process won't
> deadlock if it has one fd open with a lease on it and then breaks that
> lease by opening another fd. In that case it'll treat the __break_lease
> call as if it were non-blocking.
> 
> This seems wrong -- the process could (for instance) be multithreaded
> and managing different fds via different threads. I also don't see any
> mention of this limitation in the (somewhat sketchy) documentation.
> 
> Remove the check and the non-blocking behavior when i_have_this_lease
> is true.

This looks reasonable to me, but I'm always very worried about changing
userspace exposed behavior..

--
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/