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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 07:50:34 +0000
From:   Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@....com>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
CC:     "lucho@...kov.net" <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Justin He <Justin.He@....com>,
        "ericvh@...il.com" <ericvh@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
        <v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>, Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>
Subject: RE: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH RFC 4/4] 9p: fix race issue in fid
 contention.

Hi Dominique,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 2:32 PM
> To: Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu@....com>
> Cc: lucho@...kov.net; Justin He <Justin.He@....com>; ericvh@...il.com;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net; Greg
> Kurz <groug@...d.org>
> Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH RFC 4/4] 9p: fix race issue in fid
> contention.
>
> Dominique Martinet wrote on Mon, Sep 14, 2020:
> > Jianyong Wu wrote on Mon, Sep 14, 2020:
> >  - Ideally base yourself of my 9p-test branch to have async clunk:
> > https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-test
> > I've been promising to push it to next this week™ for a couple of
> > weeks but if something is based on it I won't be able to delay this
> > much longer, it'll get pushed to 5.10 cycle anyway.
> > (I'll resend the patches to be clean)
> >
> >> tests:
> >> race issue test from the old test case:
> >> for file in {01..50}; do touch f.${file}; done seq 1 1000 | xargs -n
> >> 1 -P 50 -I{} cat f.* > /dev/null
>
> hmpf, so that made me insist a bit on this test on my patch and I see a
> problem with that as well. The me from a few years ago was good!
>
> With that said I'll want to work a bit more on this, so feel free to base off
> master and I'll deal with rebase if required.
>
> Part of me thinks it's the same bug that will be fixed with refcounting and I
> just made it easier to hit, but I'm honestly unsure at this point and testing
> would basically mean I just code what I asked you to...
>
> Well, let me know if you want me to do the refcounting, but I'd rather let you
> finish what you started.

Thanks, I'm happy to work this.
>If possible put the patch first in the series so commits
> can be tested independently.

Ah, this patch depends on the previous patches, how can I put it as the first of the series?

Thanks
Jianyong

> Thanks,
> --
> Dominique
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ