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:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 05:38:12 +0100
From:   Al Viro <>
To:     Jeff Layton <>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <>,
        Ilya Dryomov <>,,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ceph fixes for 5.1-rc7

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 01:30:53PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:

> > I _probably_ would take allocation out of the loop (e.g. make it
> > __getname(), called unconditionally) and turned it into the
> > d_path.c-style read_seqbegin_or_lock()/need_seqretry()/done_seqretry()
> > loop, so that the first pass would go under rcu_read_lock(), while
> > the second (if needed) would just hold rename_lock exclusive (without
> > bumping the refcount).  But that's a matter of (theoretical) livelock
> > avoidance, not the locking correctness for ->d_name accesses.
> > 
> Yeah, that does sound better. I want to think about this code a bit

FWIW, is there any reason to insist that the pathname is put into the
beginning of the buffer?  I mean, instead of path + pathlen we might
return path + offset, with the pathname going from path + offset to
path + PATH_MAX - 1 inclusive, with path being the thing eventually

It's easier to build the string backwards, seeing that we are walking
from leaf to root...

Powered by blists - more mailing lists