linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] fscache: Fix race in fscache_op_complete() due to split atomic

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:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 16:26:36 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org,
        Kiran Kumar Modukuri <kiran.modukuri@...il.com>,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, sandeen@...hat.com,
        linux-cachefs@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fscache: Fix race in fscache_op_complete() due to split atomic_sub & read

Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> wrote:

> > > > Fix this by using atomic_sub_return() instead of two calls.
> > > 
> > > Seems a case for atomic_sub_return_relaxed()... why not?
> > 
> > Ummm...  In that case, should it be atomic_sub_return_release()?
> 
> Hard to tell for me: your diff./changelog is all I know about fs-cache
> ... (and this suggests -no-, given that atomic_sub() and atomic_read()
> provide no ordering...); good question though. ;-)

Yeah, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be stricter than 'relaxed'.  It's
kind of like an unlock/release operation, so I think 'release' is probably the
minimum requirement.

David