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  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:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 08:03:55 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
To:     Al Viro <>
Cc:     Ian Kent <>, Tejun Heo <>,
        Hou Tao <>,
        David Howells <>,
        Miklos Szeredi <>,
        Rick Lindsley <>,
        Carlos Maiolino <>,
        linux-fsdevel <>,
        Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: [REPOST,UPDATED PATCH] kernfs: don't create a negative dentry if
 inactive node exists

On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 01:07:46AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 09:03:53AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > It's been reported that doing stress test for module insertion and
> > removal can result in an ENOENT from libkmod for a valid module.
> > 
> > In kernfs_iop_lookup() a negative dentry is created if there's no kernfs
> > node associated with the dentry or the node is inactive.
> > 
> > But inactive kernfs nodes are meant to be invisible to the VFS and
> > creating a negative dentry for these can have unexpected side effects
> > when the node transitions to an active state.
> > 
> > The point of creating negative dentries is to avoid the expensive
> > alloc/free cycle that occurs if there are frequent lookups for kernfs
> > attributes that don't exist. So kernfs nodes that are not yet active
> > should not result in a negative dentry being created so when they
> > transition to an active state VFS lookups can create an associated
> > dentry is a natural way.
> > 
> > It's also been reported that
> > test block/001 hangs during the test. It was suggested that recent
> > changes to blktests might have caused it but applying this patch
> > resolved the problem without change to blktests.
> Looks sane, but which tree should it go through?  I can pick it, but I've
> no idea if anybody already has kernfs work in their trees...

I can take it, kernfs patches normally go through my tree, can I get an


greg k-h

Powered by blists - more mailing lists