linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] please pull file-locking related changes for v3.20

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: <CA+55aFzOU93LvBLWw5vvLLFFsMiHJuH8Yc=Zn4N6NSDwp5acUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2015 16:21:30 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Cc:	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] please pull file-locking related changes for v3.20

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net> wrote:
>
> Now that I look, it may be best to just revert this whole set for now.
> Linus, are you amenable to doing that?

Sure. But I'd prefer seeing how hard it would be to fix things first.
If this was at the end of the release cycle, I'd revert it
immediately. As it is, try to see how had it is.

The bugs I found might be as easy as just the attached (TOTALLY
UNTESTED) patch. The comment about a higher-priority process and
sched_resced() is just complete and utter crap. If somebody holds a
read lock and upgrades it to a write lock, there is absolutely *zero*
reason to let some higher-priority process get the write-lock first -
that's just simply semantically wrong bullshit. "Higher priority" does
not mean "can punch through locks".

Removing the silly incorrect counts should be trivial too. There
really are not very many users, and they can just walk the list
instead.

Now, if you've found other more fundamental bugs that look unfixable,
then that might mean that reverting it all is unavoidable, but..

                        Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (1813 bytes)