linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] tty: Lock tty pair in tty_init

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]

Date:   Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:54:33 +0200
From:   Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:     Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
        Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
        Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] tty: Lock tty pair in tty_init_dev()

On 08/29/2018, 06:28 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-08-29 at 16:46 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 08/29/2018, 04:23 AM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> It's safe to not lock both here - done to silence attempt lockdep
>>> assert in
>>> tty_ldisc_open(), which will be added with following patch.
>>
>> SOrry, could you elaborate here? I don't follow...
> 
> Sure, 4/4 patch adds lockdep_assert_held() into tty_ldisc_open().
> Currently ldisc in tty->link isn't locked, which according to code
> shouldn't be an issue, as far as I can see.
> 
> So, this patch silences lockdep warining by holding the semaphore,
> which is slowpath anyway and doesn't case any new contention.

Eh, no... Adding a lock just to make lockdep happy is a no-go. The
locking in tty is already complex enough.

> (actually, not holding the semaphore for slave might be an issue if one
> opens slave before it's fully initialized, but I'm not sure if it's
> possible).

If that turns out to be a problem, we can apply the patch. BUt unless it
is proven to be so (be it code review or a reproducer), let's leave the
locking as it is.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs