linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 2/5] xenbus/backend: Protect xenbus callback with lock

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:   Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:27:37 +0100
From:   Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To:     SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        konrad.wilk@...cle.com, roger.pau@...rix.com
Cc:     SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>, pdurrant@...zon.com,
        sj38.park@...il.com, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/5] xenbus/backend: Protect xenbus callback with lock

On 18.12.19 11:42, SeongJae Park wrote:
> From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
> 
> 'reclaim_memory' callback can race with a driver code as this callback
> will be called from any memory pressure detected context.  To deal with
> the case, this commit adds a spinlock in the 'xenbus_device'.  Whenever
> 'reclaim_memory' callback is called, the lock of the device which passed
> to the callback as its argument is locked.  Thus, drivers registering
> their 'reclaim_memory' callback should protect the data that might race
> with the callback with the lock by themselves.

Any reason you don't take the lock around the .probe() and .remove()
calls of the backend (xenbus_dev_probe() and xenbus_dev_remove())? This
would eliminate the need to do that in each backend instead.


Juergen