linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V2 07/12] fs: Add locking for a dynamic inode 'mode'

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: <20200115190846.GE23311@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:08:46 -0800
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 07/12] fs: Add locking for a dynamic inode 'mode'

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 05:03:22PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 04:20:05PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 02:12:18PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:29:37AM -0800, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>

[snip]

> > > > +``lock_mode``
> > > > +	called to prevent operations which depend on the inode's mode from
> > > > +        proceeding should a mode change be in progress
> > > 
> > > "Inodes can't change mode, because files do not suddenly become
> > > directories". ;)
> > 
> > Yea sorry.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Oh, you meant "lock_XXXX is called to prevent a change in the pagecache
> > > mode from proceeding while there are address space operations in
> > > progress".  So these are really more aops get and put functions...
> > 
> > At first I actually did have aops get/put functions but this is really
> > protecting more than the aops vector because as Christoph said there are file
> > operations which need to be protected not just address space operations.
> > 
> > But I agree "mode" is a bad name...  Sorry...
> 
> inode_fops_{get,set}(), then?
> 
> inode_start_fileop()
> inode_end_fileop() ?
> 
> Trying to avoid sounding foppish <COUGH>

What about?

inode_[un]lock_state()?

Ira