linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: Add an explicit might

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, 27 May 2020 20:09:48 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Add an explicit might_sleep() to iput

On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:17:53PM +0200, KP Singh wrote:
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
> 
> It is currently mentioned in the comments to the function that iput
> might sleep when the inode is destroyed. Have it call might_sleep, as
> dput already does.
> 
> Adding an explicity might_sleep() would help in quickly realizing that
> iput is called from a place where sleeping is not allowed when
> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP is enabled as noticed in the dicussion:

You do realize that there are some cases where iput() *is* guaranteed
to be non-blocking, right?