linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] overlay filesystem v25

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: <20141025170609.GK7996@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:06:09 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlay filesystem v25

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:53:52AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

> Yes, but it's not about race with copy-up (which the ovl_path_upper()
> protects against), but race of two fsync calls with each other.  If
> there's no synchronization between them, then that od->upperfile does
> indeed count as lockless access, no matter that the assignment was
> done under lock.

	p = global;
	if (!p) {	// outside of lock
		p = alloc();
		grab lock
		if (!global) {
			global = p;
		} else {
			destroy(p);
			p = global;
		}
		drop lock
	}
is a very common pattern, especially if you look for cases when lock is
a spinlock and allocation is blocking (in those cases you'll often see
destroy() part done after dropping the lock; that's where what I fucked up in
what I'd originally pushed.  And it wasn't even needed - fput() under
->i_mutex is OK...)
--
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/