linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

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]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=whDuBPONoTMRQn2aX64uYTG5E3QaZ4abJStYRHFMMToyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 22:20:22 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
        sandeen@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, josef@...icpanda.com,
        tytso@....edu, bfoster@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz,
        andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com, brauner@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dhowells@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 21:03, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 04:47:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So I might be barking up entirely the wrong tree.
>
> Yeah, I think you are, it sounds like you're describing an entirely
> different sort of race.

I was just going by Darrick's description of what he saw, which
*seemed* to be that umount had finished with stuff still active:

  "Here, umount exits before the filesystem is really torn down, and then
  mount fails because it can't get an exclusive lock on the device."

But maybe I misunderstood, and the umount wasn't actually successful
(ie "exits" may have been "failed with EBUSY")?

So I was trying to figure out what could cause the behavior I thought
Darrick was describing, which would imply a mnt_count issue.

If it's purely "umount doesnt' succeed because the filesystem is still
busy with cleanups", then things are much better.

The mnt_count is nasty, if it's not that, we're actually much better
off, and I'll be very happy to have misunderstood Darrick's case.

              Linus