linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph fixes for 5.1-rc7

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: <20190425182100.GU2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 19:21:00 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph fixes for 5.1-rc7

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:02:54AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I've pulled this, but maybe Jeff wants to look at whether that
> snapshotting model could have helped.

I really wonder if 76a495d666e5 (ceph: ensure d_name stability in
ceph_dentry_hash()) makes any sense; OK, you have ->d_lock held
over that, but what does it protect against?  Sure, you'll get
something that was valid while you held ->d_lock, but what good
does it do to the callers?  If they really have to care about
races with d_move(), which value do they want?