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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:33:45 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] hugetlbfs: fix hugetlbfs_statfs() locking On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:22:06 -0700 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com> wrote: > After commit db71ef79b59b ("hugetlb: make free_huge_page irq safe"), > the subpool lock should be locked with spin_lock_irq() and all call > sites was modified as such, except for the ones in hugetlbfs_statfs(). > > ... > > --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c > @@ -1048,12 +1048,12 @@ static int hugetlbfs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf) > if (sbinfo->spool) { > long free_pages; > > - spin_lock(&sbinfo->spool->lock); > + spin_lock_irq(&sbinfo->spool->lock); > buf->f_blocks = sbinfo->spool->max_hpages; > free_pages = sbinfo->spool->max_hpages > - sbinfo->spool->used_hpages; > buf->f_bavail = buf->f_bfree = free_pages; > - spin_unlock(&sbinfo->spool->lock); > + spin_unlock_irq(&sbinfo->spool->lock); > buf->f_files = sbinfo->max_inodes; > buf->f_ffree = sbinfo->free_inodes; > } Looks good. This seems to be theoretically deadlockable and less theoretically lockdep splattable, so I'm inclined to cc:stable on this. I wonder why we didn't do that with db71ef79b59bb2e78dc4.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists