linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] rename(): avoid a deadlock in the case of parents having no common ancestor

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: <20231124061518.GS38156@ZenIV>
Date:   Fri, 24 Nov 2023 06:15:18 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mo Zou <lostzoumo@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] rename(): avoid a deadlock in the case of parents
 having no common ancestor

On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 11:36:22AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:

> It would look more natural to me if s_vfs_rename_mutex got dropped in the
> callers (lock_rename(), lock_rename_child()) which have acquired the lock
> instead of here. I agree it results in a bit more boiler plate code though.

finish_locking_two_parents(), perhaps? ;-)

Seriously, though - it starts with ->s_vfs_rename_mutex and ends with
the environment for vfs_rename() or with all locks dropped.