linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/20] afs: Implement @sys substitution handling

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: <b7e489f8-c17f-5deb-9a87-2d4bac880ba7@suse.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Apr 2018 20:54:53 +0300
From:   Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] afs: Implement @sys substitution handling



On  6.04.2018 11:13, David Howells wrote:
> Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
>> lookup_one_len() seriously depends upon exclusive lock
> 
> In the code it says:
> 
> 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!inode_is_locked(base->d_inode));
> 
> which checks i_rwsem, but in the banner comment it says:
> 
> 	* The caller must hold base->i_mutex.
> 
> is one of these wrong?

Before the switch to i_rwsem, inodes had only i_mutex, so in fact the
comment is likely stale.

> 
> David
>