linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] block/loop: Serialize ioctl operations.

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]

Message-ID: <7986e524-1dc8-8d8e-51bc-a5671d7555cc@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 2018 19:31:16 +0900
From:   Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot 
        <syzbot+4684a000d5abdade83fac55b1e7d1f935ef1936e@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+bf89c128e05dd6c62523@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] block/loop: Serialize ioctl operations.

Jens, did you come up with a better alternative?
We have another bug which is causing many hung task reports.
I do want to make progress rather than stall for another three month.

On 2018/07/11 23:29, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Since syzbot restarted testing linux-next.git , it is a good chance
> to test this patch for unexpected regressions (until you come up with
> a good alternative).
> 
> On 2018/06/26 23:34, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> Did you get any idea?
>>
>> On 2018/06/05 3:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/4/18 5:19 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>>> This problem was already ignored for 8 months. Unless we boost priority,
>>>> this problem will be ignored for years. Jens, can we test this patch?
>>>
>>> Sorry, it's just that I _really_ hate this patch. We're making up
>>> a weird locking primitive that tracks the process, with a weird
>>> unlock helper that only unlocks if it's the process that is
>>> holding the mutex.
>>>
>>> I'll try and think about this a bit, it would be nice if we had
>>> a better alternative than the above.
>>>