linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 31/68] vfs: Convert qib_fs/ipathfs to use the new mount API

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9fd8642b-952b-7ed6-6543-fe3f35b504ca@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:14:58 -0400
From:   Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Cc:     Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 31/68] vfs: Convert qib_fs/ipathfs to use the new
 mount API

On 3/27/2019 7:44 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Convert the qib_fs/ipathfs filesystem to the new internal mount API as the old
> one will be obsoleted and removed.  This allows greater flexibility in
> communication of mount parameters between userspace, the VFS and the
> filesystem.
> 
> See Documentation/filesystems/mount_api.txt for more information.
> 
> [Q] Can qib_remove() race with qibfs_kill_super()?  Should qib_super
>      accesses be serialised with some sort of lock?

Sure looks to be possible to me. Although I don't think that's a reason 
not to apply your patch, you aren't making it any worse I don't think.

> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> cc: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>
> cc: Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>
> cc: linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org

Reviewed-by: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>