linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] erofs: relinquish volume with mutex held

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d18fbe06-fec1-2d9a-169e-145fd5ae7c79@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 14:14:25 +0800
From:   Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>, xiang@...nel.org,
        chao@...nel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        zhujia.zj@...edance.com
Cc:     huyue2@...lpad.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] erofs: relinquish volume with mutex held



On 2/9/23 2:06 PM, Gao Xiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023/2/9 13:18, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>> Relinquish fscache volume with mutex held.  Otherwise if a new domain is
>> registered when the old domain with the same name gets removed from the
>> list but not relinquished yet, fscache may complain the collision.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@...edance.com>
> 
> Do we need to backport this to old kernels?
> IOWs, whether "Fixes:" tag is needed?

Yeah the small fix is appropriate for being backported.

Fixes: 8b7adf1dff3d ("erofs: introduce fscache-based domain")

I will add the "Fixes" tag in the next version.


-- 
Thanks,
Jingbo