linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] block: fix backing_dev

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:39:54 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Rabin Vincent <rabinv@...s.com>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Wei Fang <fangwei1@...wei.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jej B <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] block: fix backing_dev_info lifetime

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:06:53AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Yeah, so my patches (and I suspect your as well), have a problem when the
>> backing_device_info stays around because blkdev inode still exists, device
>> gets removed (e.g. USB disk gets unplugged) but blkdev inode still stays
>> around (there doesn't appear to be anything that would be forcing blkdev
>> inode out of cache on device removal and there cannot be because different
>> processes may hold inode reference) and then some other device gets plugged
>> in and reuses the same MAJOR:MINOR combination. Things get awkward there, I
>> think we need to unhash blkdev inode on device removal but so far I didn't
>> make this work...
>
> The other option is to simply not release the dev_t until the backing_dev
> is gone.

I came to a similar conclusion here:

   https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=147103737421897&w=4

James had some concerns, but I think its now clear this problem is
bigger than something we can fix locally in scsi.